Journal Pre-proof

Steels in additive manufacturing: A review of their microstructure and properties

P. Bajaj, A. Hariharan, A. Kini, P. Kürnsteiner, D. Raabe, E.A. Jägle

PII: S0921-5093(19)31419-4
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2019.138633
Reference: MSA 138633

To appear in: Materials Science & Engineering A

Received Date: 14 October 2019

Accepted Date: 4 November 2019

Please cite this article as: P. Bajaj, A. Hariharan, A. Kini, P. Kürnsteiner, D. Raabe, E.A. Jägle, Steels in
additive manufacturing: A review of their microstructure and properties, Materials Science & Engineering
A (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2019.138633.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Steels in additive manufacturing: A review of their microstructure and
properties

P. Bajaj*, A. Hariharan*, A. Kini*, P. Kürnsteiner*, D. Raabe and E. A. Jägle †

Department microstructure physics and alloy design, Max-Planck-Institut für
Eisenforschung GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany
*These authors contributed equally and are therefore listed in alphabetical order
†
Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract
Today, a large number of different steels are being processed by Additive Manufacturing (AM)
methods. The different matrix microstructure components and phases (austenite, ferrite,
martensite) and the various precipitation phases (intermetallic precipitates, carbides) lend a huge
variability in microstructure and properties to this class of alloys. This is true for AM-produced steels
just as it is for conventionally-produced steels. However, steels are subjected during AM processing
to time-temperature profiles which are very different from the ones encountered in conventional
process routes, and hence the resulting microstructures differ strongly as well. This includes a very
fine and highly morphologically and crystallographically textured microstructure as a result of high
solidification rates as well as non-euilibrium phases in the as-processed state. Such a microstructure,
in turn, necessitates additional or adapted post-AM heat treatments and alloy design adjustments.
In this review, we give an overview over the different kinds of steels in use in fusion-based AM
processes and present their microstructures, their mechanical and corrosion properties, their heat
treatments and their intended applications. This includes austenitic, duplex, martensitic and
precipitation-hardening stainless steels, TRIP/TWIP steels, maraging and carbon-bearing tool steels
and ODS steels. We identify areas with missing information in the literature and assess which
properties of AM steels exceed those of conventionally-produced ones, or, conversely, which
properties fall behind. We close our review with a short summary of iron-base alloys with functional
properties and their application perspectives in Additive Manufacturing.

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Austenitic microstructure: stainless steels and TRIP/TWIP steels .................................................. 6
3. Austenitic/martensitic microstructure: duplex stainless steels.................................................... 13
4. Mainly martensitic microstructure: Martensitic and precipitation-hardening stainless steels ... 15
5. Martensitic microstructure: Tool steels........................................................................................ 23
6. Ferritic microstructure: ODS steels ............................................................................................... 33
7. Conclusions and outlook ............................................................................................................... 36
8. Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................... 38
9. Data availability statement ........................................................................................................... 38
10. References ................................................................................................................................ 38

-1-
 1. Introduction
The main advantages of additive manufacturing (AM) technologies of metallic parts compared to
conventional synthesis and shaping processes lie in their ability to produce complex and/or
customized parts with a short lead time, albeit in relatively low numbers. These advantages are
exploited for example when patient-specific implants are produced, when complex, structurally
optimized parts lead to performance-critical weight savings, or when AM is used for the repair of
expensive metallic jet engine parts. The alloys usually envisaged in these applications are
biocompatible, high temperature and lightweight materials such as Ti-, Ni-, Al- and Mg-based alloys.
Consequently, reviews of alloys in AM have typically focussed on these materials [1–3], with two
notable exceptions which do discuss steels, however with a different focus than the present review.
[4,5]. Yet, the most successful of all alloy families since the dawn of the iron-age 3000 years ago,
namely steel, has received relatively little attention with respect to providing a holistic view of the
interplay of alloy design, microstructure, properties and AM processing.
Scope of this review
In this review article, we aim to fill that gap by providing a review of the many different steels in use
today in AM. Our focus is on the microstructures as well as the mechanical and electrochemical
properties of steels made by fusion-based AM. In particular, we concentrate on the impact of the
typical process conditions (thermal, chemical) operative during AM processing on the microstructure
and properties. In contrast to the recent review by Fayazfar et al. [5], we do not describe in detail
the AM process parameters required to achieve dense parts. We do discuss the impact of process
parameters on the microstructure, where relevant. we restrict ourselves to fusion-based AM
processes, in particular Laser and Electron-beam Powder-Bed Fusion (L-PBF and E-PBF) as well as
Directed Energy Deposition (DED). Of these processes, the overwhelming majority of published
studies are concerned with DED and L-PBF. While E-PBF is entirely capable of processing steels, its
main applications today lie with other alloys.
We intentionally do not describe metal matrix composites (MMC) here. In particular in DED
processing, which traces its roots to cladding (hardfacing) processes, there is a very high number of
different steels reinforced by hard second-phase particles in use. Describing all of these in detail
would lengthen this review excessively. We refer the reader to other reviews of this class of
materials [3,6,7]. Additionally, we restrict ourselves to chemically homogeneous materials. This
means that we do not give an exhaustive list of studies dealing with chemically graded specimens or
AM of dissimilar alloys (multi-material approaches). Note that AM of graded specimens shares many
similarities and challenges with dissimilar metals joining, which has been researched in the joining
and welding community for many years.
Steel classes and their applications
Steels are the materials of choice in applications where the requirements are
1. corrosion resistance and general longevity under harsh environmental conditions
2. strength, ductility, hardness, toughness and wear resistance
3. low price
4. unrivalled variety of achievable microstructure features ranging from ultra-hard martensite
to compliant multiphase compounds, and / or
5. functionalities such as ferromagnetism or invar effects.
The requirement of a good resistance to environmentally harsh conditions calls for stainless steels.
Consequently, these steels, in particular AISI 316L/1.4404, are used in a large variety of applications

-2-
where the parts to be fabricated are expected to come into contact with corrosive media at
moderate temperatures during service. Where an overlap of corrosion resistance and increased
mechanical strength and hardness (compared to austenitic stainless steels) is required, maraging-
type precipitation-hardened martensitic stainless steel grades are often used (so called PH steel
grades such as 17-4PH/1.4542 and 15-5PH/1.545). This is e.g. the case in marine, power-plant and
injection moulding industries [8].
Good yield strength, high hardness and abrasion resistance are required in the tool and die making
industry, calling for tool steels. The key advantage of AM in this application is the ability to
manufacture many separate, smoothly curved cooling channels close to the surface contour of e.g.
injection moulding tools, leading to an efficient heat removal and thus an increased productivity
and/or lifetime of the tool [9–14]. The tool steels most used in conventional toolmaking processes
contain a significant amount of carbon and are not easy to process, as will be described later, and
thus the most popular choice of tool steel in AM processing today are the carbon-free maraging
steels, in particular 18Ni-300/1.2709 [5].
The comparably moderate price of stainless steels and their good processability also leads to
austenitic stainless steels often being considered a good material for users new to AM.
Besides these main groups of steels, there is a number of other, less studied alloys in use in AM.
They include for example martensitic stainless steels, duplex stainless steels, TRIP/TWIP steels and
oxide-dispersion strengthened (ODS) steels. Functional application fields for steels such as custom
shaped parts for electro-magnetic or invar applications require the use of Fe-Si, Fe-Ni or Fe-Co alloys.
Organization of this article
To allow the reader to gain a structured overview over this wide field, we group in the following the
steel grades according to their main microstructural constituents at room temperature. We begin by
describing fully austenitic (stainless) steels, progress to TRIP/TWIP steels, which are in the
undeformed state austenitic and then move to duplex steels, which consist of a combined
austenitic/martensitic microstructure. Next, we describe martensitic and precipitation hardening
stainless steels. These are fully martensitic if processed by conventional process routes. Similarly,
maraging and carbon-bearing tool steels are normally employed in an aged/tempered martensitic
state. Finally, we describe ODS steels, which are usually particle-reinforced fully ferritic stainless
steels. This grouping relates to the microstructural constituents as they are present after
conventional processing. As will become clear from the individual sections below, processing by AM
does not always lead to the intended phase composition so that not all of these materials fall readily
into one of these microstructure categories when subjected to AM processing.
Within each section, we describe the microstructure of the material, the phases present in the as-
produced and heat-treated state and its crystallographic texture. We summarize the static
mechanical properties and, where enough data is available in the literature, the fatigue properties.
Where appropriate, we also describe additional properties of the steel such as the magnetic and
corrosion properties. We close our review with an outlook on new developments in the field of
steels for AM, which includes steels with functional properties.
Overview over composition and tensile properties of the steel classes
In Table 1, the chemical composition of the most widely used steel grades in each of the described
alloy classes are given, together with the usually used grade name. In Figure 1 and Figure 2,
schematic overviews over their basic mechanical properties as well their microstructure after AM
processing are presented. For comparison, also the values and microstructure for equivalent,
conventionally-produced steels are given. The figures serve are intended to provide a broad

-3-
overview over the results reported in the literature, but do not in all cases capture the sometimes
considerable dependence of the microstructure on processing parameters.

-4-
 Table 1: Chemical composition of the most widely used grade of each steel class. All compositions in wt.-%, Fe content is
balance. If no value is given, the content is unspecified or as low as possible.

commonly
type used C Cr Ni Mo Mn Si Ti Al Other
grade name
austenitic
316L
stainless <0.03 16-18 10-14 2.0-2.5 <2 <0.75
(AISI standard)
steel
Duplex
SAF2705
stainless <0.03 25 7 4 <1.2 <0.8
(brand name)
steel
PH stainless 17-4 PH
<0.07 15-17 3-5 1 1 3-5 Cu
steel (brand name)
Maraging 18Ni-300 0.6- 0.05-
<0.03 <0.5 17-19 4.5-5.2 <0.1 <0.1 8.5-9.5 Co
tool steel (MIL standard) 0.8 0.15
C-bearing H13 0.32-
4.75-5.5 1.1-1.75 0.2-0.6 0.8-1.2 0.8-1.2 V
tool steel (AISI standard) 0.45
PM2000
ODS steel 0.07 19 0.03 0.13 0.07 0.5 4.2 0.5 Y2O3
(brand name)

Figure 1: Overview over basic mechanical properties of steels discussed in this reviews, to allow a general comparison of
properties obtained by conventional processing and by the two AM processes DED and L-PBF. The kind of steel is
denoted by field colour, while the field border indicates the method of production. Generally, the properties in heat
treated state, where applicable, are given. All data sources are mentioned in the individual chapters of this review. ODS:
Oxide Dispersion-Strengthened, C-tool steels: Carbon-bearing tool steels, TWIP/TRIP: Twinning/Transformation-induced
Plasticity, PH: precipitation hardening.

-5-
Figure 2: Overview over typical microstructures of the different steels in this review, produced conventionally (in the state
intended for use) and after additive manufacturing. Only the two AM processes L-PBF and DED are depicted due to limited
information available for E-PBF in the literature. Note that depending on processing conditions, different microstructures
may be observed after AM. ppt.: precipitates, ret.: retained, α: ferrite, bcc, α’: martensite bcc/bct, γ: austenite, fcc.

2. Austenitic microstructure: stainless steels and TRIP/TWIP steels

Austenitic stainless steels (ASS) in use in AM
The published literature in AM of austenitic stainless steels is almost exclusively restricted to 316L
stainless steel (1.4404, X2CrNiMo17-12-2), with some reports in the literature about 304L stainless
steel (1.4307, X2CrNi18-9). In these steels, the high chromium content (17-18wt.-%) leads to a good
corrosion resistance, while the nickel additions keep the microstructure of the alloys fully austenitic
in conventionally-produced materials. To the best of our knowledge, there are no reports on the
200-series of austenitic stainless steel, where Ni is replaced by Mn as austenite stabilising element.
Early attempts to process austenitic stainless steels by AM
Today, austenitic stainless steels are processed routinely in L-PBF, yielding fully dense material. The
stainless steel 316L was used already in some of the very earliest papers demonstrating laser
powder-bed fusion, i.e. full melting of the powder instead of partial sintering or melting of a second-
phase binder material with a low melting point. However, these attempts in the early 2000s were
only partially successful because of the strong balling effect during the process, where molten metal
forms spheres owing to a high surface tension and thus poor wetting of the substrate [15]. Balling
can be attributed to a low laser power, a large focus diameter and hence a low laser energy per unit
area. Typical values at that time were a maximum power of 50 W and a beam diameter of 0.8 mm.
Contributing factors to balling were the poor oxygen control in the process chamber and the coarse
powder (mean diameter of 75µm) in use [15]. Continued attempts during the next decade with
varying powder size and process parameters coupled with thermal modelling and single track
experiments (cf. Figure 3) resulted in identification of a process window to avoid balling and produce
solid components in the L-PBF process [16–18]. Still, the lasers in use had a limited power and large

-6-
beam diameters compared to today’s standards, with typical values up to 200W and between 0.5 to
1.1 mm, respectively. This resulted in rather slow possible build rates with scan velocities ranging
from 0.5 to 50 mm/s [16]. Finally, in 2010 Tolosa et al. achieved a relative density greater that 99.9 %
in L-PBF produced 316L stainless steel using a 200 W laser with a 80 µm laser focus diameter and
scan velocity of up to 1000 mm/s [19,20]. Efforts in process development are now directed towards
developments of machine independent standard process parameters. Kamath et al. suggest the use
of the energy density (roughly: the energy imparted by the laser beam divided by the volume of the
melt pool) to identify process parameters required to produce components with more than 99 %
relative density [21]. Thomas et al. suggest the use of process maps based on normalized energy
density [22]. Bajaj et al. define a criteria of dimensionless overlap depth, calculated from process
parameters using analytical models, being greater than 1 for producing parts with relative density
greater than 99%. Other recent works are focussed on increasing production rates of L-PBF process.
For instance, Metelkova et al. used a larger laser beam diameter together with higher laser power to
increase the productivity by up to 840% [23].

Figure 3: Early single-track experiments to identify suitable process parameters for L-PBF processing of 316L austenitic
stainless steel. Reprinted with permission from reference [16]

Microstructure of as-built austenitic stainless steels: Phase selection and hierarchical nature
The microstructure in L-PBF produced stainless steels has been reported to be fully austenitic and to
have a columnar grain structure with fine solidification cells with diameters of 1 µm or less [1,24–27].
Note that these solidification cells are very similar in crystallographic orientation, so many tens or
hundreds of such cells together form one austenite grain, i.e. a material volume bound by high angle
grain boundaries (see Figure 4 b and c). The grains observed in L-PBF produced stainless steel
samples are finer than the ones in conventional processes [24,26–29]. 316L and 304L stainless steels
are in a composition range where solidification can occur either with a primary (δ-) ferritic phase or
with a primary austenitic (γ) phase. The different primary solidification phases and their impact on
the final microstructure and properties of these alloys are well documented e.g. in the welding
literature [30,31]. In DED processing of 316L stainless steel, it is indeed observed that in the regions
along the borders of the solidification cells (i.e. in the intercellular regions), the microsegregation

-7-
during solidification leads to an enrichment in the ferrite stabilising elements Cr and Mo and hence
to fine ferritic films (up to 9 vol.-%) [32,33]. The primary solidification phase in this case is austenite,
as expected from the Schaeffler diagram [33]. In L-PBF, however, the observed microstructure in all
studies is fully austenitic and there is no indication of any solid-state phase transformation
[24,29,34–36]. This observation is in line with results obtained in rapid solidification experiments
(splat quenching and laser welding), where it was shown that a higher cooling rate favours
partitionless austenitic solidification [37]. In the case of L-PBF, the solidification is however not
entirely partitionless. The intercellular regions show an enrichment with Cr and Mo, which is,

Figure 4: Microstructural features of an L-PBF produced 316L austenitic stainless steel at different length scales. a)
Schematic showing the various length scales of the microstructural features observed. b) EBSD inverse pole figure
mapping showing the grain orientations. c) SEM image of the cross section showing high-angle grain boundaries
(HAGB), fusion boundaries (delineating melt pools), and the cellular solidification structure. d) Bright field TEM image of
the cellular structure showing dislocation networks in the cell boundaries. e) high-angle annular dark-field (HAADF)
scanning TEM (STEM) image of the solidification cells showing oxide particles. Figure reprinted with permission from
[38].

however, not sufficient to stabilise ferrite [27,38].

Despite this seemingly simple microstructure, austenitic stainless steels produced by L-PBF display
an outstanding combination of higher strength than their conventionally produced counterparts
without a reduced ductility. Wang et al. attribute this property combination to the hierarchical
nature of the microstructure (cf. Figure 4), consisting of solidification cells, low and high angle grain
boundaries, dislocations, and oxide inclusions [38]. This hierarchy spans six orders of magnitude on
the length scale and is unique to AM processing. Similar hierarchical microstructures have also been
reported in Electron Beam Powder Bed Fusion (E-PBF) of stainless steel 316L [39].
Wang et al. also show that the microstructural features can be controlled via process parameters
and propose tuning of the microstructure on a layer-by-layer basis or even within individual layers
[38]. The possibility to control cooling rates during and after solidification by varying process
parameters presents an opportunity to exert local and digital control over the steel microstructure,
impossible in conventional methods. Todd suggests using these to precisely control microstructures
at a fine scale to unlock the potential of existing alloys in terms of mechanical properties [40].
Upon plastic deformation, austenitic stainless steels typically show strain-induced martensite
formation. The high yield strength, combined with a low work hardening rate observed in L-PBF
produced 316L is due to the fact that the martensite formation is hindered in the very fine

-8-
microstructure [41]. This obstruction is particularly pronounced at cryogenic temperatures. Agnew
et al. argue that the high elongation to fracture observed in L-PBF produced 316L is the result of
work hardening from twinning induced plasticity (TWIP) [42].
Texture and texture control of austenitic stainless steels
Usually, a strong crystallographic fibre texture with the <001> direction aligned along the build
direction (i.e. against the direction of fastest heat removal) is observed [29,36]. However, depending
on scanning strategy such a strong crystallographic texture is sometimes not present [24,26]. The
texture is usually explained by the fact that the <001> direction is the fastest growing direction in
the solidification of cubic metals, and hence dendrites/cells grow with this crystallographic
orientation aligned with the temperature gradient [4]. The temperature gradient, in turn, is dictated
by the heat removal from the melt pool, which is globally dominated by conduction towards the
base plate (i.e. along the build direction), but locally varies along the melt pool. As explained below,
by modifying the process parameters such that the melt pool shape and the fraction of each melt
pool that gets re-melted with each scan track and each layer is altered, the overall texture of the
material can be influenced.

Figure 5: a), b) Backscattered electron (BSE) SEM images showing melt pool boundaries and columnar grain structure
along the y-z (scanning direction – build direction) plane for a sample prepared using low energy density (a) and high
energy density (b). c), d) EBSD inverse pole figure maps along z axis (build direction) corresponding to (a) and (b). The
process parameters impact the texture by re-melting different parts of the material. Figure adapted from [43] and
reused under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).

Sun et al. demonstrate an approach to achieving high strength and ductility in L-PBF produced 316L
by enhancing the TWIP effect [44]. They modify the crystallographic texture along the build direction
from the usual <001> to <110> using a scanning strategy including small hatch spacings and a
relatively high laser power. The <110> grain orientation favours twinning upon deformation and
leads to higher strain hardening rates which in turn simultaneously improves UTS and ductility. Sun
et al. later demonstrated that by careful control of the laser parameters in L-PBF it is even possible
to attain a crystallographic lamellar microstructure (see Figure 5 c) in 316L, where, <100> and <110>
oriented grains along the build direction are present alternately [43]. Texture control can also be
used to avoid the anisotropy in yield and tensile strength [42]. However, the strain hardening
behaviour is highly dependent on the grain morphology, resulting in anisotropy in ductility despite
reduced texture [42].

-9-
Heat treatments of as-built austenitic stainless steel parts
Riemer et al. perform stress relieving heat treatments up to 650°C and report a stable
microstructure [29]. This is supported by Saeidi et al., who do not find microstructural changes up to
annealing temperatures of 800°C (cf. Figure 6) [45]. Higher annealing temperatures, both in a
furnace and in a HIP, lead to recrystallization of the material. Saeidi et al. observe a partial
transformation to δ-ferrite needles at annealing temperatures of 1150°C or higher, as predicted by
the equilibrium phase diagram. This ferrite is stable upon slow cooling to room temperature and,
together with the recrystallization and coarsening phenomena, leads to a loss of strength of the
material [45].

Figure 6: TEM images for a) as L-PBF produced and b) heat treated (800 °C for 1 h) 316L stainless steel. Annealing at this
temperature results in reduction in dislocation density but the cellular structure and the cell size remains unchanged.
Reprinted with permission from reference [45].

Tensile properties of austenitic stainless steel compared to conventionally produced material

As qualitatively described before, L-PBF produced stainless steels often have superior yield strength
and tensile strength [26,27,29,38,42,46–48]. The reported values show a high variability and are in
the range of 350-600 MPa and 480-800 MPa for yield strength and UTS, respectively. Conventionally
produced steel shows typical values of 230-290 MPa and 580-590 MPa for YS and UTS [49] (see
Figure 7 for a comparison). L-PBF produced material also has a higher yield to tensile strength ratio
[26,29,46,48]. Although some works report lower fracture toughness and elongation to failure (as
low as 12%) for L-PBF produced stainless steel as compared to wrought material [26,50] (typically:
40-50%), most studies report a higher elongation to failure and fracture toughness (up to 67%)
[27,29,38,42,48,51]. The high tensile and yield strength have been related to the finer
microstructure and dislocation substructure as per Hall-Petch relation [27,38,42,47]. As with all AM-
produced alloys, the defects in the material (brittle phases/inclusions, porosity) have a strong impact
on the elongation to fracture. For a tabular overview of the tensile test properties determined by
many different authors for stainless steels produced by L-PBF, E-PBF and DED, we refer the reader to
the tables in the reviews by Herzog et al. [1], Lewandowski and Seifi [49], and Fayazfar et al. [5].
Generally, the values reported for DED and E-PBF fall within the large range of values reported for L-
PBF-produced austenitic stainless steel, as can be seen in the overview Figure 1.

- 10 -
Figure 7: Tensile mechanical properties of L-PBF produced 316L austenitic stainless steel compared with the properties of
conventionally-produced material. The improved yield strength at similar uniform elongation values of L-PBF material
compared to annealed conventionally produced material can be clearly seen. Figure adapted with permission from
reference [38]. The references for the conventionally-produced material properties taken from the literature are
available in the original publication.

In DED produced stainless steels, a lower yield and tensile strength is observed at the top of the
sample than near the base plate. This is the result of lower cooling rates further away from the
substrate, where heat conductivity away from the laser heat source is slower [32,52] (we will return
to this point in greater detail in the section dealing with tool steels).
Fatigue properties of austenitic stainless steel
Fatigue strength of L-PBF produced stainless steel samples is an important factor for applications in
areas such as the medical or aerospace industry [26,29,53]. As can be expected, there is a difference
to conventionally produced materials. Firstly, the elongated grain structure (composed of many
solidification cells, elongated in the same direction as the grains) in L-PBF produced samples results
in a different crack growth behaviour depending on the loading direction (see Figure 8). For loading
parallel to the direction of grain growth (Figure 8 b), the crack path is highly tortuous, resulting in
slow growth. On loading perpendicular to the grain long axis, the crack propagation along grain
boundaries is straight and unhindered (Figure 8 a) [26,29]. Stress relieving heat treatments up to
650 °C do not alter the grain structure and therefore do not have any significant effect on the crack
propagation [29]. Hot isostatic pressing (HIP) processing at even higher temperatures, on the other
hand, results in partial recrystallization and therefore in a bimodal, more isotropic microstructure
yielding isotropic crack propagation [29]. High surface roughness of the as L-PBF built samples is
particularly detrimental to their fatigue performance and it was observed that the fatigue limit can
be improved by as much as a factor of two when introducing a surface finishing step [29,53]. Stress
relief heat treatments and HIP both have only a small effect on the fatigue performance, but largely,
after surface finishing, the fatigue limit is in the range of conventionally processed samples
[26,29,53].

Figure 8: Cross sectional SEM image (backscattered electron contrast) showing fatigue crack growth interaction with
solidification cell structure in loading perpendicular to the grain long axis (a) and parallel to it (b). Note that grains are
elongated and coaxial with the solidification cells. Since the crack progresses preferentially along the cell boundaries, the

- 11 -
crack tortuosity depends on loading direction. Reproduced with permission from [26].

Corrosion properties of austenitic stainless steel

Recent studies have shown that L-PBF stainless steels have better corrosion resistance properties as
compared to wrought material [43,54,55]. Sander et al. show that L-PBF produced stainless steel
316L is more resistant to pit initiation as compared to wrought 316L, however, L-PBF samples also
had inferior repassivation once a stable pit was initiated (cf. Figure 9) [55]. The Cr-depleted zone
around MnS inclusions is known to be a pit nucleation site, and thus the better resistance to pit
initiation in L-PBF material can be attributed to small or non-existent MnS inclusions [50,55]. The size
of MnS is smaller in L-PBF-produced material compared to conventionally-produced material
presumably due to the high cooling rate during solidification [56,57]. This is observed also with other
primary precipitates in L-PBF-produced materials [58]. The small oxides/oxynitrides present in the
material apparently do not act as pit initiation sites [57]. The lamellar microstructure obtained by
Sun et al. leads to an extremely high corrosion resistance with breakdown (pitting) potential
approaching the stability limit of chromium oxide [43]. Lau et al. studied the potential of L-PBF
stainless steels to be used in nuclear applications [50,59,60]. In consecutive papers they show that
after high temperature recrystallization, the fatigue, impact, and stress corrosion cracking behaviour
of L-PBF 316L is comparable to wrought alternatives and is suitable for use in nuclear applications
under elevated temperatures.

Figure 9: Pitting and repassivation potentials of L-PBF produced 316L austenitic stainless steel compared to
conventionally-produced material. While the resistance to pitting is higher, the repassivation of pits also requires a
higher potential. Figure reprinted under Creative Commons license (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0) from reference [55].

Other austenitic stainless steels

In general, AM produced 304L stainless steel is very similarly to the previously described 316L
stainless steel in terms of microstructure and properties. The rationale for its use lies in its lower Ni
content which leads to a reduced price, but also a reduced austenite stability. Abd-Elghany et al.
demonstrated L-PBF of 304L stainless steel, however, due to poor density they only achieved yield
and tensile strengths of about 70% as compared to wrought products [35]. Nonetheless, they were
able to obtain a fully austenitic microstructure devoid of any grain boundary carbides. Later, Guan et
al. manufactured almost fully dense samples resulting in yield and tensile strengths of up to 570 and
717 MPa respectively, both higher than the wrought alternatives [48]. They also reported a higher
yield to tensile strength ratio of ~0.8. They also showed the effect of scan strategy on the isotropy of
the microstructure and related it to the mechanical properties. Wang et al. performed DED of 304L

- 12 -
[52]. They studied the effect of chemical composition on the austenite stability and mechanical
properties as a result of strain hardening. They observed that lower content of austenite stabilizers,
either achieved intentionally by mixing of pure Fe powder with pre-alloyed 304L or by evaporation
of austenite stabilizers during the process, reduces the austenite stability which promotes strain
hardening by TRIP effect and results in a superior UTS and elongation to failure.
TRIP/TWIP steels
TRIP and TWIP steels are usually fully austenitic metastable steels that show deformation-induced
transformation (TRIP) or twinning (TWIP) upon plastic deformation. In this property, they are not
unlike the aforementioned austenitic stainless steels. The high work hardening capacity of these
steels make them attractive for applications where high energy absorption, high strain hardening
rates and high ductility are required.
There are a few studies reporting on the development and use of TRIP/TWIP steels in AM. Haase et
al. processed a high-manganese steel (X30Mn22) by L-PBF and investigated its microstructure and
deformation behaviour [61]. In the as-produced state, the microstructure consisted mainly of
austenite, together with α’- and ε-martensite. Mn segregation was present, but much reduced as
compared to cast reference material. They showed that the TRIP/TWIP effect is indeed operational
upon tensile deformation of the material and discuss its anisotropy stemming from the strong, L-
PBF-typical fibre texture. For all testing directions, the yield strength and UTS were found to be
higher compared to cast and rolled reference material (302-416 MPa vs. 275 MPa and 906-1065
MPa vs. 894 MPa, respectively), but the elongation at fracture is less (24-31% vs. 52%). The same
group also shows production of the same steel, but with varied Al additions by DED and L-PBF [62].
By increasing the Al content, the stacking fault energy of the material increases, which leads to a
change in deformation mechanism from TRIP to TWIP, as well as a suppression of martensite
formation in the as-produced microstructure. Another study employs the commercial TWIP steel X-
IP 1000 (X60Mn22), processed by L-PBF [63]. The material displays mechanical properties similar to
its conventionally processed counterpart and a strong crystallographic texture. The authors also
report on L-PBF processing of the same steel modified by Ag additions for improved electrochemical
dissolution rates intended for use in biodegradable implants [64].

3. Austenitic/martensitic microstructure: duplex stainless steels

Duplex stainless steels are used due to their very good corrosion resistance, in particular against
pitting and crevice corrosion [65]. As the name suggests, their microstructure consists of a
combination of ferrite and austenite, typically in roughly equal amounts. Despite similar
concentrations of the austenite-stabilising Ni as in austenitic stainless steels (and additionally some
N in the “superduplex” grades), ferrite is stabilized by the very high content of Cr (24-26%). This is
primary δ-ferrite that forms upon solidification, while austenite forms during cooling or during heat
treatments. As can be expected, changes in processing can have a strong impact on the phase
composition. Most of the few published works on AM of duplex stainless steels pertain to the
superduplex steel 2507 (1.4410, X2CrNiMoN25-7-4).
Phase selection, microstructure and texture of duplex stainless steels in as-produced and heat treated
state
In the first study on L-PBF processing of duplex steel, relative densities of only 90% were achieved
[66]. Nevertheless, already in this study it was established that L-PBF processing leads to an almost
exclusively ferritic microstructure with small amounts of austenite and nitrides (presumably Cr2N)
nucleating at grain boundaries. The higher the laser energy input is, the more time austenite has to

- 13 -
grow at elevated temperatures, and hence the higher the final austenite fraction in the
microstructure is. Note that the growth morphology of austenite is along grain boundaries or of
Widmanstätten type. A post-heat treatment allows to reach the desired phase mixture of 55%
austenite and 45% ferrite. Subsequent studies reached >99.5% relative density and confirmed the
microstructural findings, including the absence of σ phase in the as-produced state [67]. The σ phase
is an intermetallic phase in Cr-rich steels that is generally detrimental to the ductility and is therefore
unwanted. Due to the exclusively ferritic microstructure in the as-produced state, the yield strength
and UTS of L-PBF produced 2507 is much higher compared to conventionally produced material,
with a moderate elongation at fracture of 8% and a ductile fracture mode. Heat treatment at 1200°C
leads to the desired α+γ microstructure, but also to the formation of σ phase precipitates [68]. This
renders the steel quite brittle at room temperature (1.8% elongation at fracture) and softer
(920MPa UTS), due to the presence of austenite. Hengsbach et al. study the heat treatment
response of L-PBF-produced UNS S31803 duplex stainless steel and find that recrystallization is
taking place at all studied temperatures from 900 to 1200°C and that the maximum austenite
fraction is obtained at the intermediate temperature of 1000°C [69] (see Figure 10 for a comparison
of as-built and recrystallized micro- and nanostructure). They also remark that some nitrogen is lost
during the L-PBF process, without quantifying it.
Eriksson et al. demonstrate the processing of Zeron 100X, a superduplex stainless steel, by wire and
arc additive manufacturing (WAAM) [70]. Due to the significantly slower cooling rate in this AM
process, compared with L-PBF, there is a high fraction of austenite and chromium nitrides already
present in the microstructure after cooling. Additionally, the intrinsic heat treatment of subsequent
passes (IHT, cf. section on tool steels) leads to the precipitation of secondary austenite.
Magnetic properties of duplex stainless steels
Another consequence of the high ferrite fraction of AM-produced material is that the magnetic
properties differ markedly from conventionally-produced material: The saturation magnetization
and the coercivity in L-PBF processed 2507 duplex steel are both much higher than in its
conventionally-produced counterpart [71]. Additionally, the AM-typical strong fibre texture also
leads to a pronounced anisotropy in the soft magnetic properties.

- 14 -
Figure 10: TEM images of L-PBF produced UNS S31803 duplex stainless steel in the (a) as-produced state and (b) in the
heat treated state. (c-f) EBSD (electron backscatter diffraction) inverse pole figure and phase mappings of the same
material. Contrary to conventionally-produced duplex stainless steel, the L-PBF material is almost fully ferritic in the as-
produced state, with small austenite grains and chromium nitride precipitates along the grain boundaries. A suitable
heat treatment partially recovers the desired duplex austenite/martensite microstructure. Adapted with permission from
[69].

4. Mainly martensitic microstructure: Martensitic and precipitation-hardening

stainless steels
Precipitation-hardened (PH) stainless steels combine a high corrosion resistance and mechanical
strength. They are promising for AM production due to their good weldability. There are fully
martensitic and austenitic/martensitic grades [72]. The two PH steels practically exclusively in use in
AM today are 17-4PH (1.4542, X5CrNiCuNb16-4) and 15-5PH (1.4545, X5CrNiCo15-5), both usually
called “fully martensitic” grades. PH steels contain Cr (in the range of 16-18 wt.%), Ni and Cu (3-5
wt. % each). The chromium content is responsible for the corrosion resistance of PH steels by
forming a passive layer of Cr2O3 oxide [73]. Nickel is an austenite stabilizer, which also enhances the
corrosion resistance. Precipitation hardening is due to the Cu precipitates in the microstructure,
which nucleate and grow upon ageing heat treatment. In comparison to the 17-4PH grade, 15-5PH
steel has a slightly lower chromium content and minor additions of molybdenum. There are other PH
steel grades which do not rely on Cu as precipitation strengthening element, such as 17-7PH (1.4568,
X7CrNiAl17-7), or commercial alloys such as stainless steel EOS CX [74] or Uddeholm Corrax. These
achieve precipitation hardening instead by an addition of Al, forming the Ni3Al phase, which renders
them closely related to maraging steels (see the next section). There are very few studies on AM of
martensitic stainless steels (i.e. non-precipitation-hardening). These steel grades (400 series stainless
steels) contain Cr at similar levels as in austenitic stainless steels (usually 12-14wt.-%) but no or a low
amount of C and Ni which is insufficient to stabilize austenite at room temperature.
Due to the high number of studies on 17-4 PH steel, mostly using the L-PBF process, we first describe
the microstructure and properties of this material-process-combination and how they compare with

- 15 -
their wrought (conventionally produced) counterpart. Next, we describe other AM processes and
the properties of 15-5 PH and other martensitic stainless steel grades.
Microstructure and texture of PH stainless steels
Wrought 17-4 PH steels usually have a fully martensitic (BCC) microstructure [8]. However, the
presence of austenite-stabilising Ni makes it relatively common to also find retained austenite in the
microstructure. The martensite finish temperature is only slightly above room temperature (32°C),
so small variations in steel chemistry and processing can have a pronounced effect on the phase
composition.
Extensive studies on the effect of AM process parameters and post heat treatment on the relative
density, final microstructure and mechanical properties of 17-4PH have been performed [75–81].
The as-produced microstructure can contain a high fraction of austenite phase or can even be fully
austenitic, despite the high cooling rates during L-PBF. For example, Facchini et al. report that L-PBF-
produced 17-4 PH stainless steel (Ar process atmosphere) contains 72 % austenite and 28 %
martensite [82]. TEM investigations show retained austenite sandwiched between martensite plates.
The as-produced microstructure can additionally contain Nb-rich carbides (cf. the SEM micrograph
and the EDS maps in Figure 11) [83].
Both ferritic/martensitic and austenitic as-produced 17-4 PH usually exhibits the AM-typical strong
crystallographic fibre texture with the <001> direction along the build direction [84,85]. In Figure 12,
the microstructure of L-PBF produced 17-4 PH steel is displayed as EBSD inverse pole figure and
phase maps. The (in this case only moderate) volume fraction of retained austenite is clearly visible.
It must be noted that many studies only note the fraction of austenite and martensite/ferrite
without unravelling the complex spatial distribution of phases and its origin by solidification and
solid-state phase transformations. Generally, there is a much larger variability in the reported
microstructures as compared to other steel types.

- 16 -
Figure 11: SEM image showing the presence of fine NbC precipitates in inter-dendritic regions in as-built 17-4 PH
stainless steel. (b-e) EDS maps acquired from the highlighted region in (a) giving evidence for the enrichment of Fe and
Cr in dendrite cores and Nb and C in interdendritic regions. Reprinted with permission from reference [83].

Reasons for the high variability in the observed microstructure if PH stainless steels
Several explanations for the strong discrepancy between microstructure in as-quenched
conventional material (fully martensitic) and as-L-PBF-produced material (up to fully austenitic) have
been proposed. First, chemical inhomogeneity due to microsegregation can lead to the enrichment
of Ni in interdendritic (-cellular) areas. This enrichment either leads to the formation of austenite
already during the late stages solidification (the first solidification phase expected being ferrite)
and/or to a local stabilisation of austenite (that had been formed by solid-state transformation from
ferrite) by reducing the Mf temperature to values below the room temperature [86]. Next, the small
solidification cell size (2µm or less in diameter) and the residual stress in the material can hinder the
martensitic transformation [87]. Finally, the austenite is stabilized by the uptake of nitrogen into the
solid solution during processing (see next section). While all of these explanations are plausible,
there is no consensus yet in the literature about the solidification and solid-state phase
transformation paths in L-PBF produced 17-4 PH.

- 17 -
In one study, the as L-PBF produced sample consists predominantly of coarse BCC ferrite phase, with
only 10.5% of smaller austenite and martensite grains at the melt pool boundaries [85]. The authors
speculate that the fine-grain austenite/martensite structures are formed in the heat affected zone at
the melt pool boundaries, where the intrinsic heat treatment (re-heating by subsequent scan tracks
and layers) induces local recrystallization and phase transformation. They do not discuss the reason
for the majority phase being ferrite, but it stands to reason that the material solidified as ferrite and
never transformed to austenite during cooldown [85].

Figure 12: EBSD inverse pole figure map (left) and phase map (right) of 17-4 PH stainless steel produced by L-PBF. The
high fraction of retained austenite, stabilised by the very small austenite grain size is visible. Note the bimodal grain size
distribution in this specimen. Adapted with permission from [88].

Figure 13: STEM micrograph of solution heat treated and aged 17-4PH steel produced by L-PBF (a, b) and conventionally
(c, d). (a) and (c) lower magnification HAADF images; (b) and (d) higher magnification EDS maps showing Cu-rich
precipitates (all scale bars are 40 nm). Solution heat treatment largely eliminates the differences between the processing
routes and precipitation is similar in both specimens. Adapted with permission from [85].

- 18 -
Effect of atomizing media and L-PBF process atmosphere on phase selection in PH stainless steels
Several studies investigated the effect of atomizing medium on the powder properties and final
microstructure of 17-4 PH [79,80,89,90]. Atomization can be performed either by water [79,90], or
by different gases, such as Ar or N2. It has been shown that powders atomized using Ar gas are
completely martensitic, while N2-atomized powders are primarily austenitic, with ~6% martensite
phase [91] (cf. the micrographs and XRD diffractograms in Figure 14). This difference in the phase
content is attributed to the 40 % higher thermal conductivity of N2 gas, causing a faster cooling
during atomization compared to Ar [91]. However, using N2 as atomizing medium could also
incorporate additional nitrogen, which has an austenite-stabilizing effect, into the material and thus
affect the final microstructure. Unfortunately, these studies do not report the N2 composition in the
as-atomized powder [79,91].
The effect of L-PBF chamber gas (Ar or N2) on the microstructure of 17-4 PH steels has been
evaluated [87,89]. For an Ar gas atomized powder, a martensitic microstructure in the as-fabricated
samples was obtained regardless of the process gas atmosphere. In samples produced using N2 gas
atomized powder, the atmosphere during L-PBF had a strong impact on the phases present after the
process: under an N2 atmosphere, the resulting microstructure was 50 to 75 % austenite, while
under an Ar atmosphere the microstructure was only ~8 % austenite [87].

Figure 14: Microstructures and corresponding XRD measurements of (a) Ar-atomized and (b) N2-atomized 17-4 PH
stainless steel powders. Reprinted under Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) from reference [92].

Effect of L-PBD process parameters on phase content in PH stainless steels

The high variance in the reported as-produced microstructures for this material suggests that the
laser melting parameters during L-PBF have a marked influence on the amount of retained austenite
obtained after building. It was shown that the austenite fraction could be changed merely by
changing the laser scan strategy in L-PBF. In samples produced with a concentric-type scan strategy

- 19 -
(outside-in succession of concentric rings), the austenite content was much higher (82%) compared
to regular scan strategies (~50%) [93]. This is attributed to different thermal gradients in the sample
depending on scan strategy [93]. Changing the volumetric energy density also has an effect on the
austenite fraction [75].

Post-heat treatment studies of PH stainless steels: homogenization and Cu precipitation

Sun et al. [85] have performed a microstructure comparison of wrought and AM produced 17-4 PH
steels in the as-produced, solution heat treated and aged states. They show that a solution heat
treatment (4h at 1038°C) with final quenching leads to a fully martensitic microstructure also in L-
PBF produced material. Figure 13 shows TEM micrographs of 17-4 PH produced by L-PBF and
conventionally. Both samples have been solutionized and aged (1h at 482°C). Apparently, the
differences in the initial microstructure of wrought and AM specimens have no significant effect on
the Cu precipitation during ageing heat treatment. Other studies also show that heat treatment can
transform AM-produced 17-4PH steel microstructures to be very similar to the ones expected from
wrought material [87,88]. Merely ageing as-produced material (at temperatures between 495 and
620°C) also decreases the retained austenite fraction, but not beyond ~20% [80]. Lass et. al [94]
investigate a number of heat treatment schedules and propose an alternative multi-step heat
treatment and quenching process to obtain a suitable “condition A” microstructure of 95 %
martensite and 5 % retained austenite. This heat treatment includes a low-temperature treatment at
-60 to 0°C in order to induce martensite transformation.
Hardness and tensile test properties of PH stainless steels
The different fractions of martensite and austenite in 17-4 PH steel impact the mechanical
properties not only due to austenite being a softer phase, but also because the precipitation
reaction during ageing occurs only in martensite. Therefore, a large range of values for mechanical
properties such as hardness [80,89,95], yield and ultimate tensile strength, and elongation at
fracture have been reported, dependent on the microstructure of the material. In the as-produced
state and the as-produced and age hardened state, the material is typically softer and less strong
than wrought and age hardened material [96].
The different microstructural states are also reflected in the tensile test response of 17-4 PH steel.
Figure 15 shows the stress-strain curves of as-produced material as well as solutionized, solutionized
and aged, and direct aged material [87]. In the as-produced material processed under nitrogen
atmosphere, when the microstructure contains >50% retained austenite, strain-induced martensite
formation during the tensile test occurs (TRIP effect) as evidenced by the low strain hardening rate
in the early stage of plastic deformation. The measured elongation to fracture is just under 50 % and
the yield strength is 600 MPa. Compared to fully age hardened wrought material, the former is very
high, while the latter is quite low. Imposing a solutionizing treatment transforms the retained
austenite to martensite and consequently the yield strength increases strongly at the cost of a
reduced elongation at fracture. As is the case for other AM-produced steels, given the correct heat
treatment, the strength of the material can be as good as or even surpassing conventionally-
produced material, but typically at slightly lower ductility [94,97]. “Correct heat treatment” in the
case of PH steels refers to a treatment that aims to transform the retained austenite to martensite,
with subsequent ageing.

- 20 -
Figure 15: Tensile test results for 17-4 PH stainless steel produced by L-PBF in various heat treatment states. “No HT”: as-
produced state, all other heat treatments performed for 2h at the temperatures indicated (1h at 482°C). In the as-
produced state, the high fraction of retained austenite leads to a pronounced TRIP effect, while heat treatment at 788°C
leads to a fully martensitic microstructure with increased strength. Reprinted with permission from [87].

Fatigue properties of PH stainless steels

AM induced defects in the microstructure such as voids, oxides and un-melted particles, as well as
surface defects such as enhanced surface roughness affect the material’s fatigue behaviour under
cyclic loading [98,99]. Additionally, due to the AM-typical crystallographic texture and the
anisotropic distribution of process defects, both low-cycle and high-cycle fatigue properties of L-PBF
produced 17-4 PH are dependent on the build orientation [88,100]. Samples tested parallel to the
build direction showed a shorter fatigue life compared to samples tested perpendicular to the build
direction. This is due to the morphology of build defects (unmelted areas, lack-of-bonding defects)
that leads to a higher defect area per gauge area in the direction parallel to the build direction
compared to perpendicular to the build direction. These internal defects serve as crack initiation
sites.
Interestingly, heat treating the material (solutionizing and ageing) does not improve the fatigue life
under all conditions [88]. At high strain amplitudes, when fatigue life is short, the impact of defects is
less strong than at low strain amplitudes and long fatigue life. Since defects dominate the
mechanical behaviour of the strong, heat treated material more than that of that of the softer, as-
produced material, the former shows a higher fatigue strength in the low-cycle regime and vice
versa (see Figure 16) [88].
To our knowledge, no detailed investigations about the fatigue behaviour of DED- and E-PBF-
produced PH stainless steels exist in the literature.

Figure 16: Fully reversed fatigue test results for 17-4 PH steel produced by L-PBF, compared with conventionally

- 21 -
produced material. “AB”: as-built, “HT”: heat treated (solution heat treated and aged). Specimens were built in two
different directions (specimen long axis along build direction: “vertical”, perpendicular to build direction: “horizontal”).
Although heat treatment improves the stress life of AM-produced specimens, their fatigue performance lags behind
conventionally-produced material due to the presence of defects in the microstructure. Reprinted with permission from
[88].

Corrosion resistance of PH stainless steels

L-PBF produced 17-4 PH steel shows a better resistance to corrosion compared to wrought 17-4 PH.
This result was found for both gas- and water-atomized powder (type of gas not specified), and only
applies when the material shows full relative density [101]. Both the polarization resistance [90] as
well as the pitting potential [102] (cf. Figure 17) are improved compared to wrought material (both
materials solutionized and aged). The better corrosion resistance is attributed to the refined
microstructure of AM-produced material (both finer lath martensite and finer, homogenously
distributed NbC precipitates) and the increased stability of the passive film as a result of an
increased nitrogen content in the AM-produced material stemming from N2 gas atomization [102].
PH stainless steels: other AM processes
A recent study showed the feasibility of wire and arc additive manufacturing (WAAM) of 17-4 PH
steels [86]. The as-deposited WAAM 17-4 PH microstructure had a dense δ-ferritic/martensitic
microstructure with a small amount of retained austenite. The presence of 38% helium in the argon-
rich shielding gas reduced the amount of retained austenite. The authors state that a higher heat
input and therefore a slower cooling rate is expected when using He shielding gas compared to Ar,
due to the higher thermal conductivity of He. Also in this study, solutionizing and ageing leads to a
microstructure comparable with wrought material and satisfactory mechanical properties [86]. 17-4
PH steel has been successfully produced by DED, but reports in the literature are very scarce until
now [103,104].

AM of 15-5PH grade stainless steel

Several studies focused on the feasibility of manufacturing 15-5 PH steels using L-PBF and
investigated the effect of build orientation on its high-temperature tensile and fatigue properties
[53,105–109]. Roberts et al. [110] reported a completely martensitic 15-5 PH steel having a 30%
higher tensile strength at 593oC and 50 % higher Vickers hardness at room temperature than
wrought 15-5 PH. Stress rupture tests at 593oC and 211 MPa showed that AM 15-5 PH had a ~30 %
higher rupture life than conventional 15-5 PH [110]. However, the mechanisms for this creep life
improvement has not been clarified yet.

- 22 -
Figure 17: Onset of pitting corrosion in wrought and heat treated, L-PBF-produced 17-4 PH stainless steel. The steep rise
in current density, signifying pitting corrosion, occurs at higher electrode potentials in AM-produced material compared
to conventionally-produced material Reprinted with permission from reference [56].

Martensitic stainless steels

There is very limited information available on the processing of martensitic stainless steel. The only
grade in use so far seems to be 420 (1.4021, X20Cr13). It is possible to obtain fully dense specimens
with fully martensitic microstructures both by DED [111,112] and by L-PBF [113]. The phase content
of the microstructure depends strongly on the chosen process parameters: DED processing can
result in a mixture of martensite and eutectic (δ-) ferrite, while L-PBF processing under high laser
power can result in retained austenite as well. The former duplex microstructure results in a higher
hardness compared to conventional processing [112], while the latter results in hardness
comparable with wrought material (up to 51 HRC) [113].

5. Martensitic microstructure: Tool steels

There are two kinds of tool steels in use in AM, namely carbon-free maraging steels and carbon-
bearing tool steels. In both kinds of tool steel, the final microstructure in use consists of martensite
with precipitates. However, in the case of carbon-bearing tool steels, the martensitic matrix without
precipitates obtained upon quenching is hard and brittle and tempering serves to regain some
ductility by precipitating carbon from the martensite matrix in the form of carbides. In the case of
the high-Ni maraging steels, on the other hand, quenching leads to a comparably soft and ductile
martensitic microstructure which gains its strength by precipitation of intermetallic-phase particles
upon ageing [114,115]. Since the cooling rates in fusion AM processes are typically high, martensite
formation is induced in both kind of tool steels during AM. Therefore, maraging steels with a ductile
martensitic microstructure are well processable in AM while carbon-bearing tool steels with a brittle
martensitic microstructure tend to crack a result of thermal stresses built up during the AM process
[116]. A considerable fraction of the literature on carbon-bearing tool steels is therefore concerned
with finding the optimum process parameters to produce crack free, dense samples. In contrast, for
maraging steels most studies are aimed at optimizing microstructures, mechanical properties and
post process heat treatments.

- 23 -
5.1 Maraging steels
The microstructure of as-built maraging steels
For maraging steels, the most widely used alloy in AM is 18Ni-300 (1.2709, X3NiCoMoTi 18-9-5).
[1,9,114,117–133] There are only a few examples of other types of maraging steels in the AM
literature, such as 18Ni-250 (1.6359 (~1.2706), X2NiCoMo18-8-5) [134], 14Ni-200 [135,136] as well a
Fe-Ni-Al maraging-type model alloy [137]. In the remainder, we therefore focus the discussion on
the 18Ni-300 grade.
Crack free samples with relative densities above 99% can be readily produced
[114,119,123,126,127,131]. Compared to conventionally produced (wrought) maraging steels which
are almost fully martensitic [130,138], AM produced maraging steels show a drastically different
microstructure. They have a cellular/dendritic solidification microstructure in L-PBF
[1,114,119,120,122,123,125–127,130–132] (see Figure 18) as well as in DED [128,130,137] with cell
sizes of approximately 0.3-2µm in L-PBF and around 5µm in DED. The prior austenite grains are
relatively coarse with grains up to 1 mm in diameter in DED-produced material. Within this
solidification microstructure, the martensitic phase transformation occurs. The resulting
microstructure looks rather different from conventionally-produced maraging steels: the blocks of
martensite laths are mainly found within the individual solidification cells as they are often (yet not
always) confined by retained austenite along cell boundaries [130]. The retained austenite is a
consequence of the enrichment of alloying elements in the interdendritic (intercellular) region by
microsegregation during solidification (cf. EBSD and EDS maps in Figure 19). The enrichment of Ni
stabilizes the austenite to room temperature [130,137]. Therfore, AM produced maraging steels
contain a significant amount of austenite (6-11%, depending on processing conditions)
[120,122,129–131].

Figure 18: SEM micrograph showing the cellular/dendritic solidification microstructure of L-PBF produced 18Ni-300
Maraging steel. Reprinted under Creative Commons license (CC BY 4.0) from reference [129].

- 24 -
Figure 19: EBSD mapping (a) together with corresponding EDS element mapping of DED produced 18Ni-300 Maraging
steel. The enrichment of alloying elements in the interdendritic (intercellular) regions stabilizes austenite. Reprinted
under Creative Commons license (CC BY 4.0) from reference [130].

The texture of as-built maraging steels

The retained austenite grains show a fibre texture with the crystallographic <001> orientation
parallel to the build direction [139]. As in other steels, this is attributed to the preferential growth
during solidification along the maximum thermal gradient [4]. Unlike in e.g. austenitic stainles steels,
the solid state martensite transformation in maraging steels leads to a pronounced weakening of the
texture, because one austenite grain orientation leads to a multitude of martensite variants and
hence possible crystallographic orientations [114,139]. Figure 20 shows the resulting almost random
grain orientation with no specific texture noticeable in either an EBSD mapping or in the
corresponding pole figures.

Heat treatment of maraging steels

The cellular microstructure is retained upon aging at common aging temperatures (490-530°C)
[114,120,124,133]. At higher aging temperatures such as 600°C, substantial austenite reversion
takes place [133]. The cellular microstructure completely dissapears after solution treatment
(usually between 815 and 840°C, where the steel is fully austenitic) [119,120,123,125,129] and is
replaced by a fully martensitic yet coarser microstructure upon quenching [120,129]. This leads to a
decrease in hardness and strength compared to the as-produced state [119,125,129].

- 25 -
Figure 20: EBSD analysis of L-PBF produced 18Ni-300 Maraging steel (vertical cross section through the sample). (a)
depicts an inverse pole figure colored map. (b) shows the corresponding pole figures. Reprinted under Creative Commons
license (CC BY 4.0) from reference [114]

Figure 21: Atom probe tomography reconstruction showing the different types of precipitates (Ni3Ti (η type) and Fe7Mo6
(µ phase) ) occurring in a L-PBF produced 18Ni-300 Maraging steel after aging at 510°C for 2h. Reprinted with permission
from [124].

As mentioned before, the reason for the outstanding combination of strength and toughness of
maraging steels is the hardening of the martensitic microstructure by intermetallic precipitates
during the aging heat treatment. In the as-L-PBF-produced condition, no precipitates or small
clusters of atoms are found in 18Ni-300 [114,122,124,130], indicating a cooling rate high enough to
suppress precipitation. However, there are indications for early stages of precipitation in DED-
produced material, accompanied by an increased hardness [130]. This is shown to be the result of
repeated re-heating of the material upon deposition of additional tracks and layers, a condition
termed intrinsic heat treatment (IHT). A simple ternary Fe-Ni-Al maraging model alloy, specifically
designed to show precipitation upon IHT during DED processing, shows a high number density of
intermetallic NiAl precipitates directly after AM without additional ageing post-heat treatment [137].
The precipitation sequence upon post-AM-process aging heat treatment of L-PBF-produced
maraging samples is comparable to conventionally produced maraging steels [115,140,141]: first,
sperical Ni3X precipitates (η-phase) are formed with X being Ti, Al, Mo [114,119,122,124,130]
followed by Fe7Mo6 (μ-phase) precipitates [122,124,130](cf. Figure 21). See ref. [130] for a
comparison of precipitation in conventional, L-PBF- and DED-produced material.

- 26 -
Tensile mechanical properties of maraging steels
Overall, the mechanical properties of AM-produced maraging steel are comparable to
conventionally produced material, but not entirely identical. Material produced by L-PBF displays
equal or slightly higher yield and ultimate tensile strength compared to conventionally produced
material in the non-aged condition despite the finer microstructure resulting from L-PBF
[119,120,123,131]. After an aging heat treatment (both with and without prior solutionizing), a
significant increase in hardness (e.g. from 381 to 645 HV) and in tensile strength accompanied by a
reduction in ductility is observed, as expected [119,125,129,131].
Together with precipitation, austenite reversion is observed at the cell boundaries around retained
austenite during ageing [120,122,129,131]. In conventional material, no austenite, neither retained
nor reverted, was observed, which is the reason for its higher hardness compared to AM produced
material in the aged condition [130]. Upon aging heat treatment the toughness reduces significantly
and in the aged condition it is lower for L-PBF produced material compared to conventionally
produced one [114,119,131]. Tan et al. found the mechanical properties to be isotropic [114].
Casati et al. concluded that a solution treatment of L-PBF prduced samples is not necessary and
consequently the as-prduced samples can be directly aged [129]. In Figure 22, the results of their
tensile tests before and after ageing are shown. They found that the retained austenite does not
play a key role in the fracture process and that the reversion of austenite plays a minor role
compared to the strengthening effect of the intermetallic precipitats. In contrast, Tan et al. [120]
argue that after solution and aging heat treatment the fracture mechanism is more favourable than
directly aging the as-produced material and suggest that solution treatment should be performed.
See Table 2 for an overview of published mechanical properties of 18Ni-300 maraging steel.

Figure 22: Tensile curves of L-PBF produced 18Ni-300 maraging steel before and after aging at 460°C for 8h. Reprinted
under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) from reference [129].

Fatigue properties of maraging steels

Croccolo et al. found the fatigue properties to be isotropic with a fatigue limit of 600 MPa [117] (i.e.
1/3 of the static yield strength, in line with results for conventionally-produced maraging steel
[142,143]). Becker et al. found the fatigue crack growth rates of peak aged material to be isotropic
and equal to conventionally-produced material [123]. Isotropy is due to the weak texture in this
material as a consequence of the martensitic phase transformation, as explained above. Despite
virtually defect-free samples, the ductility and fracture behaviour is still strongly affected by the
properties of any defects remaining in the material, i.e. their orientation, morphology, arrangement
etc. [125,129].

- 27 -
 Table 2: Overview of published mechanical properties of 18Ni-300 maraging steel. AP: as produced, SA: solution annealed,
AH: ageing heat treated.

Source condition E (GPa) Rp0.2 YS (MPa) UTS elongation at Hardness (HV Tough-
(MPa) (MPa) fracture (%) or HRC) ness (J)
[120,123, Wrought SA 180 760-895 830-1170 6-17 30-37 HRC
126,131] Wrought AH 183-193 1790-2070 1830-2100 5-11 525 HV / 54 HRC
[119] L-PBF AP 1178 7.9 381 HV 24
L-PBF SA 1080 10.2 341 HV 24
L-PBF AH 2164 2.5 645 HV 5
[123] L-PBF AP 181 815-1080 1010-1205 8.3-12 420 HV
L-PBF SA 161 800 950 13,5 320 HV
L-PBF AH 220 1750 1850 5,1 600 HV
[124] L-PBF AP 370 HV
L-PBF AH 573 HV
[121] L-PBF AP 1000 1200 8
[125] L-PBF AP 900 1200 6
L-PBF AH 1950 2000 1,5 630 HV
[126] L-PBF AP 1085-1192 5-8 30-35 HRC
[127] L-PBF AP 166 985 1152 7.6 34 HRC
[129] L-PBF AP 915 1188 6.1 371 HV
L-PBF SA 279 HV
L-PBF AH 1957 2017 1.5 600 HV
[131] L-PBF AP 163 1214 1290 13,3 40 HRC 42
L-PBF AH 189 1998 2217 1,6 58 HRC 5
[120] L-PBF AP 915 1165 12.4 35-36 HRC
L-PBF AH 1967 2014 3.3 53-55 HRC
L-PBF SA 962 1025 14.4 28-29 HRC
L-PBF SA+AH 1882 1943 5.6 52-54 HRC
5.2 Carbon-bearing tool steels
The most prominent examples of carbon-bearing tool steels used in AM are the high speed steels
M2 (1.3343, HS 6-5-2 C) [18,116,144–149] and HS 6-5-3-8 (1.3294, ~M3.2) [150], the cold working
steels X65MoCrWV3-2 [151] and the hot working tool steels H11 (1.2343, X38CrMoV5-1) [10,152–
157] and H13 (1.2344, X40CrMoV5-1) [11,12,148,158–179]. Most articles deal with the tool steel
H13 and the phenomena encountered there are representative for the whole class of steels.
Therefore, we will first describe the microstructure and mechanical properties of H13 in detail
before briefly touching on the other tool steels in use in AM.

Microstructure and texture of carbon-bearing tools steel H13

It was shown that virtually dense and crack free samples from H13 (1.2344, X40CrMoV 5-1) can be
produced by DED with optimized process parameters [173,175,176,178]. Dense as well as crack free
samples can be achieved by heating the base plate during the L-PBF process to at least 100°C
[12,158,161,170,174]. It has been shown that H13 can be processed by electron beam melting (E-
PBF), which requires a pre-heated powder bed in all cases [13,180]. Similar to maraging steels, the
microstructure of AM-produced H13 tool steel consists of solidification cells/dendrites with retained
austenite located in the interdendritic regions. The cell size ranges from 0.5 to 2µm for L-PBF
[158,162,166,174] and from 2 to 30µm for DED [165,167,169,173,175]. In DED, the secondary
dendrite side arms are more pronounced than in L-PBF [175]. Brooks et al. [177] suggest from WDS
measurements that Cr, Mo as well as V are enriched in the interdendritic/austenitic region. As in
maraging steel, the cellular structure is the result of microsegregation during solidification which

- 28 -
enriches some of the alloying elements in the interdendritic regions. In particular the enrichment of
carbon stabilizes the austenite to room temperature (see Figure 23) [172]. In contrast to maraging
steels, however, carbide precipitates can already be present in the as-AM-produced state
[158,161,166,169,172–175].

Figure 23: SEM micrograph (a) together with the corresponding EBSD analysis (b) of H13 steel built by L-PBF. The main
microstructure constituent is martensite (red). Austenite (blue) is stabilized at the cell boundaries due to microsegregation.
Reprinted with permission from reference [172].

Alternative explanations for the austenite formation have been proposed. Holzweissig et al.
hypothesize that the austenite is formed upon carbon diffusion in the solid due to the IHT [158].
Krell et al. propose a delta ferritic solidification of the dendritic region and a gamma solidification of
the interdendritic region [174]. It must however be noted that there is no conclusive experimental
evidence for these alternative explanations.
There is only limited information available in the literature regarding the texture of H13 tool steel.
Probably the crystallographic texture in L-PBF produced material is very weak, for the same reasons
as in maraging steels [162].

In-situ and ex-situ heat treatment of carbon-bearing tool steels

Since martensite formation induces transformation strain and turns the material brittle, and since
pre-heating the base plate eliminates cracking, an obvious conclusion is to assume that pre-heating
prevents martensite formation by keeping the temperature above the martensite start temperature
MS. However, for all pre-heating temperatures up to 300°C, which is above the MS temperature for
the nominal composition of H13, the same cellular solidification structure and martensitic
microstructure is found [174] (see the micrographs in Figure 25). This suggests that cracking is
avoided due to the lower thermal gradients and reduced residual stresses at elevated temperatures
rather than due to a suppression of martensite formation. Base plate heating of 400°C changes the
phase transformation and hence the microstructure after cooldown significantly: by keeping the part
above the MS temperature, a bainitic microstructure is formed [161]. This bainitic sample shows a
higher hardness as well as higher tensile strength compared to the martensitic microstructure
obtained at lower heating temperatures. It must be noted that authors typically report the nominal
base plate temperature, usually measured in the heating itself below the base plate. The actual
temperature in the sample being built can be significantly lower than this nominal temperature.
Another factor is the chemical inhomogeneity of the material: Due to microsegregation, the steel
inside dendrites/cells contains less carbon than the nominal composition and hence locally has a
higher MS temperature.

- 29 -
Like in L-PBF, DED-produced H13 shows a martensitic microstructure with some retained austenite.
But unlike L-PBF, the martensite is tempered due to the heat input upon IHT during DED [173]. This
effect is visible when comparing the hardness of the top layer (negligible IHT) to lower layers of a
sample (significant IHT): in as-DED-produced H13, the top layer has a higher hardness compared to
the lower layers (see Figure 24) [156,160,164,175]. The lower layers tempered by the IHT contain V
and Cr rich carbides [177]. These are mainly MC-type carbides, plus a small amount of M7C3 carbides
[169]. Cottam et al. attribute the transformation of retained austenite to martensite to the in-situ
tempering due to the IHT [179]. During the build, also the cooling rate during solidification decreases
as the part becomes taller and heat conduction into the base plate is reduced. Therefore,
solidification cell diameters at the top of the build are larger compared to the bottom of the build
[178].

Figure 24: Hardness profile along the cross section of a DED built H13 tool steel sample. The highest hardness in the top
region of the sample (left side of the graph) is due to the fact that here the martensite is untempered. The layers below
are tempered by the IHT and therefore softer. The hardness peak at around 6 mm from the top is presumably due to
secondary hardening (i.e. precipitation of carbides). Reprinted with permission from reference [160].

A similar in-situ tempering effect by the IHT as in DED has also been reported for L-PBF [161,172].
However, the results are not as conclusive as in the case of DED-produced material: Zheng et al.
found Fe3C cementite (as well as retained austenite) in the martensitic microstructure in the as-L-
PBF produced state by means of XRD [166], while Ren et al. did not find any precipitates by TEM
[162]. Both studies do not mention the use of base plate heating. Deirmina et al. find precipitation of
transition carbides, followed by M3C, M23C6 carbides and finally MC, M2C and M6C upon tempering of
an austenitized and quenched L-PBF-produced sample in a dilatometer. Since the first two
precipitation reactions are not observed upon tempering of an as-produced sample, they propose
that a low-temperature transformation already occurs during the L-PBF process [172]. Mertens et al.
attribute the higher hardness in the top layer compared to the bulk of the sample to a tempering of
the martensitic microstructure for builds without and with base plate heating up to 200°C [161].

The retained austenite decomposes during post-heat treatment at 500°C, and the cellular
solidification microstructure disappears at tempering temperatures above 600-700°C [172–174].
Complete austenitization followed by quenching results in a martensitic microstructure very similar
to conventionally produced material without retained austenite [171–174] (see Figure 25).

- 30 -
Figure 25: SEM micrographs showing the microstructure of H13 steel samples produced by L-PBF at 200°C pre-heating
temperature after different heat treatments: a) and b) tempering at 600°C and 700°C respectively. c) austenitization at
1040°C followed by oil quenching. Reprinted with permission from reference [174].

L-PBF produced samples that are tempered directly from the as-produced state do not show the dip
in hardness at low tempering temperatures that is characteristic for conventionally produced
material and that is due to softening of the martensite [172,174]. Furthermore, the secondary
hardness peak is shifted to significantly higher temperatures. This can be explained by a high amount
of carbon and carbide formers being bound in the retained austenite that is stable up to relatively
high temperatures [172–174]. Only when this austenite is decomposed, the secondary carbides can
form.

Mechanical Properties of carbon-bearing tools steel H13

Reported hardness values in the as-L-PBF produced state range from 570HV up to 680HV (and even
745HV in the skin area[163]) [162,170,174]. These values are similar to or even higher than as-
quenched (hardened) wrought H13 material, reflecting the fully-martensitic state of this material.
The fact that many of the reported values for the yield strength and UTS are significantly lower in the
as-L-PBF-built condition than conventionally produced and heat treated H13 suggests that the
extreme brittleness of this state leads to premature fracture of tensile test specimens
[12,158,161,163,170]. After tempering, the L-PBF-produced material shows almost the same value
as wrought and heat treated material [12]. However, the elongation to fracture is much lower in the
L-PBF-produced samples in the as-produced as well as aged conditions [12,158,161,163,170],
presumably because of remaining process-induced defects such as porosity. For as-DED-produced
material, the hardness (550HV to 660HV [164,175,179]), the UTS (~2000MPa) and the elongation at
fracture (5-6%) are similar to those of quenched and tempered wrought material, reflecting its in-
situ tempered state [169]. Depending on the application, this could be a desired outcome, since it
could alleviate the need for a post-tempering treatment. See Table 3 for an overview of published
mechanical properties of H13 tool steel.

- 31 -
The fatigue life of L-PBF produced H13 (as-built surfaces) is significantly below that of conventionally
produced material [12]. This can be attributed to the residual stress and the sample surface
roughness stemming from the L-PBF process [170]. Even after surface machining the fatigue strength
remained significantly lower than that of reference material (50% failure probability at 107 cycles
strength of 283MPa compared to 600MPa) [170]. The fatigue properties drastically improve upon
stress relief and austenite decomposition heat treatment at 600°C [12].

The wear resistance of DED produced H13 is comparable or even superior to that of conventionally
produced material [169,181]. The wear loss in a sliding wear pin-on-disc experiment of as-DED
produced material was only 1/3 of that of wrought and hardened H13 steel [169]. There is no
conclusive information yet available on the wear performance of L-PBF produced H13 steel.

Table 3: Overview of published mechanical properties of H13. AP: As-produced, AH: age hardened (tempered), BP: Base
plate temperature during build

Source condition E (GPa) YS (MPa) UTS (MPa) elongation at Hardness (HV

fracture (%) or HRC)
[164] [161] H13 wrought AH 210 1569-1650 1930-1990 9-12 40-53 HRC
[169] [12]
H13 wrought AP 50-54 HRC
[163] L-PBF AP 1000-1200 0.8-1.9 612 (skin 745)
[158] L-PBF AP 100°C 1150-1275 1550-1650 1.5-2.25
[164] DED AP 46-54 HRC
[161] L-PBF AP RT 190 1236 1712 4.1
L-PBF AP 188 835 1620 4.1
(BP 200°C)
L-PBF AP 194 1073 1965 3.7
(BP 400°C)
[12] L-PBF AP 1003 1370 1.7 59 HRC
L-PBF AH 1580 1860 2.2 51 HRC
[175] DED AP 550 (up to 700
in top layer)
HV
[160] DED AP 400-600 (750
in top layer)
HV
[165] DED AP 53-56 HRC
[166] L-PBF AP 57 HRC
[169] DED AP 1288-1564 2033-2064 5-6 660
[170] L-PBF AP 198 892 1440 1.5 571-579 HV
(BP 240°C)

Other carbon-bearing tool steels

The microstructure and processing of H11 (1.2343, X38CrMoV 5-1) produced by L-PBF is similar to
the one described for H13 [153–157,182]. There is as much as 15wt% retained austenite in the as-

- 32 -
produced state, which reduces to 3wt% or less upon tempering [153,157]. The microstructure also
includes a very low volume fraction of M3C carbides in the as-produced state and M23C6 in the
tempered state [153]. A high (nominal) preheating temperature of 500°C leads to austenite
transformation to upper bainite instead of martensite [157].

For M2 steel it was shown that it is possible to produce dense and crack free 1D single line tracks
[183] as well as 2D surfaces in L-PBF without pre-heating [184]. 3D structures, however, require base
plate heating to at least 200°C [116,144–147,184]. The microstructure is somewhat different from
H11 and H13: microsegregation during solidification not only stabilizes austenite, but also leads to
the formation of carbides and possibly eutectic structures in the interdendritic regions
[144,148,149,184] (see Figure 26). The hardness of as-L-PBF-produced M2 steel parts is, at 57 HRC,
almost as high as that of heat treated conventionally produced material (65 HRC) [116]. By re-
melting each layer during the L-PBF process, the as-produced hardness can even reach values as high
as 64 HRC [116]. The tensile testing results of as-produced L-PBF samples are somewhat worse than
those of heat treated conventional material, with 1300 MPa UTS and 0.7% elongation at fracture
compared to 1600 MPa and 1.5% [116].

There are scattered examples of other, higher-carbon tool steels being processed by AM in the
literature. They include high-carbon steel HS 6-5-3-8 (1.3294) [150], X65MoCrWV3-2 [151] and a
steel containing even 2 wt% C [185]. These steels can be produced fully dense and crack free by high
pre-heating temperatures (e.g. 500°C). The solidification microstructure and in-situ tempering is in
principle similar to the behaviour described for lower-carbon tool steels above.

Figure 26: SEM micrograph of the microstructure of an L-PBF produced M2 steel showing examples of the carbides
formed at the cell boundaries. Reprinted with permission from reference [186].

6. Ferritic microstructure: ODS steels

Oxide dispersion strengthened (ODS) steels are stainless steels meant for use at high temperatures.
They contain a minimum of 12% Cr and essentially no austenite stabilisers, and hence are either
martensitic, martensitic/ferritic, or fully ferritic at room temperature. Grades with high Cr contents
and with other ferrite stabilising elements are ferritic at all temperatures up to melting. ODS steels
achieve their corrosion resistance by their Cr content (as much as 23%) as well as, for some grades,

- 33 -
Al additions. Their creep resistance is provided by a homogeneous dispersion of fine oxide particles,
typically a few to a few tens of nm in size. With some exceptions, the oxide added is Y2O3, although
this stoichiometry may change during processing to Y2Ti2O7 or other compounds. Additionally, their
microstructure makes them attractive in fission and fusion power plants. ODS steels are
conventionally produced via a powder metallurgical process route involving mechanical alloying (i.e.
prolonged high-energy milling) of metal and oxide powders and hot compaction (e.g. hot extrusion
or HIP), potentially followed by post-heat treatments. They are often considered difficult to weld,
because the small oxide precipitates may coarsen or leave the weldment during joining.
ODS steels by AM of mechanically alloyed powders
Most reports of the use of ODS steels in AM are related to the commercial alloy PM2000 (Fe-19Cr-
5.5Al-0.5Ti-0.3Y2O3) or its close relative, MA956. The first report of L-PBF processing of an ODS steel
is by Walker et al. [187]. They synthesized single-wall specimens from mechanically-alloyed PM2000
powder and showed that a homogeneous distribution of oxides can be retained in this process route.
Although the average sizes of the oxides in their samples are somewhat coarser than in
conventionally-produced PM2000 (average diameter 48-61 nm by L-PBF, depending on process
parameters, vs. 30nm conventionally), the general feasibility of ODS processing by AM was proven.
Processing in this study suffers from a very low available laser power of only 50W, necessitating very
slow scanning speeds for full consolidation. The authors show that the slow scanning speed is the
main factor contributing to oxide coarsening during the L-PBF process [187].
Subsequent studies use similar processing routes, i.e. melting of fully mechanically alloyed PM2000
or MA665 powders by L-PBF [188–190]. The microstructure in all cases is similar. It is fully ferritic,
shows a strong fibre texture with the <001> direction parallel to the build direction, and includes a
homogeneous distribution of fine oxides (see Figure 27). In some cases, also coarser oxides are
observed [188], potentially due to agglomeration of nanometre-sized oxides [190]. The crystal
structure of the oxides is sometimes reported as Y2Ti2O7, sometimes as Y4Al2O9 [189]. The strong
crystallographic texture leads to an anisotropic mechanical behaviour, with e.g. ductile fracture
when strained in the build direction, but brittle transgranular fracture when strained perpendicular
to the build direction [188]. After an additional heat treatment, the tensile strength reaches the
values of conventionally produced material [188].

Figure 27: PM2000 ODS steel produced by L-PBF after mechanical alloying. (a) TEM micrograph showing the oxide
dispersion in the ferritic matrix and (b) the corresponding oxide size distribution for SLM (L-PBF) and conventionally
produced material. Oxides after L-PBF processing are slightly coarser than in conventionally-produced material, but are
homogeneously dispersed. Adapted with permission from [188].

Vasquez et al. processed Fe-14Cr-1W powder mechanically alloyed with Y2O3 and TiH2 by L-PBF and
report a microstructure of the built parts similar to the one described above for PM2000 [191]. Gao
et al. successfully produced mechanically alloyed Fe–18Cr–2W–0.5Ti–0.3Y2O3 powder by E-PBF [192].

- 34 -
They show the preferential arrangement of a part of the small oxides along grain boundaries, 10-40
nm in diameter. The results of tensile tests conducted on the as-built parts at temperatures up to
600°C, while dependent on the testing direction, are very promising. This includes occurrence of a
ductile fracture mode [192].

ODS steels synthesized in-situ by additive manufacturing

The natural oxide layer on the surface of steel powder particles, together with a residual oxygen
content in the process chamber, leads to oxides in the microstructure of many steels processed by L-
PBF. Saeidi et al. describe the presence of Cr-rich, amorphous silicates in the microstructure of L-
PBF-produced 316L austenitic stainless steel [47,193]. Such oxides are probably present in all L-PBF-
produced steels, but few authors notice or comment on them. Saeidi et al. ascribe the higher than
expected hardness of austenitic stainless steel, compared with conventionally produced one, partly
to the existence of these oxides. The room-temperature mechanical properties, in particular the
ductility of their samples compares favourably with 304L ODS austenitic stainless steel produced by
HIP.
Also other authors notice the presence of oxides in as-L-PBF-produced steels, be it in 316L austenitic
stainless steel (mostly Si- and Mn-rich oxides) [27,50,194], Invar alloy (Fe-36Ni, with Fe3O4 oxides)
[195] or maraging steels (TiO2) [124], see Figure 28. As mentioned before, often a bimodal oxide size
distribution is found: besides oxides tens of nm in diameter, also coarser oxides, 10-100µm are
found [131,196]. The coarse oxides usually occur when the material is processed with low laser
power and, importantly, slow scanning.

Figure 28: Three different materials produced by L-PBF including oxide particles with diameters below 1 µm (a) Si-rich
oxides in a 316L stainless steel [47], b) TiO2 inclusions in a 18Ni-300 maraging steel [124], c) oxides in Invar 36 [195].
Adapted from the references with permission.

These findings led to attempts to synthesize ODS steels not by the laborious and energy- and time-
intensive process of mechanically alloying, but by intentional oxidation in-situ during the L-PBF
process. Oxygen can be introduced directly into the powder during atomization using an oxidising
gas atmosphere [197], or by using an artificially oxygen-enriched process atmosphere in L-PBF
[198,199] or in DED [200]. In the latter case, incursion of air in the region above the melt pool also
led to the emergence of nitrides next to the expected oxides. In most studies, using an oxidising
process atmosphere led to an increase in the number density of oxide particles.
Oxides can also be introduced as nano-particles into the steels without mechanical alloying. Doñate-
Buendía et al. use laser-generated Y2O3 nano-particles (among others) electrochemically dispersed
on micrometre-sized PM2000 matrix powder in the DED process [201]. The thus synthesized ODS
steel performed similarly to oxide-free PM2000 matrix powder processed by DED, but showed a 22%
increase in compressive yield strength at a temperature of 600°C.

- 35 -
It is remarkable that the size of the small oxide particles in all these studies is between 10-80 nm
despite the wildly varying processing routes. This fact suggests that the oxides are actually dissolved
in the liquid steel melt during AM processing. A part of the oxygen floats to the melt pool surface
and a) is ejected as spatter [202] b) keeps being floated up layer by layer, until it forms the surface
“slag layer”, or c) forms coarse oxide inside the material, in particular at slow scanning speeds. The
remaining oxygen presumably precipitates from the melt, leading to the often-observed small and
round oxide particles. It must by noted, however, that there is no experimental proof for this
hypothesized mechanism yet, beyond the similarity in particle size.
Other reinforcing particles
In a similar way as in ODS steels, various authors have processed steels (mostly austenitic stainless
steels) with the aim to produce a steel matrix reinforced with nanometre-sized hard particles. This
includes processing of TiB2 nano-powders with steel micro-powder [203,204] and the in-situ
formation of TiC particles by the reaction Ti+C→TiC in the melt pool [205,206]. As mentioned in the
introduction, a full review of these MMC-type materials is, however, outside the scope of this review.

7. Conclusions
Steels are mankind’s most successful, important, affordable and available structural materials. They
often serve in the form of enabling, backbone, and safety-critical components in key products in all
fields relevant to society such as transportation, energy conversion, safety, health, infrastructure
and manufacturing. Examples are large buildings, cars, ships, tools, spaceships, wind turbines, and
nuclear power plants.
The published studies about the additive manufacturing of steels reflect the opportunities and
challenges of this manufacturing pathway and the wide variety of available steel grades. For some
steels classes and specific AM processes, large numbers of studies have been performed. For other
steel variants and AM processes, the number of published works is still small and in some cases
there is disagreement among the published results regarding microstructure and properties.
Generally, we can draw the following conclusions:
Steels can be processed in fusion AM processes to almost full relative density. A small volume
fraction of process-typical defects such as pores remains in the microstructure. Some grades,
especially carbon-bearing tool steels, require pre-heating of the substrate plate to achieve
crack-free parts.
The microstructure of AM-produced steels is, as is to be expected, dominated by the
solidification and solid-state phase transformations. Its features are smaller than those in the
conventionally produced counterparts, usually at least by an order of magnitude.
For some steels, the phases in the as-produced microstructure differ greatly from the intended
in-use microstructure. This is due to the high cooling rates during AM, which may change the
primary solidification phase, but also because microsegregation upon solidification leads to
chemical inhomogeneity and hence locally differing phase stabilities. Additionally, high cooling
rates after solidification can lead to incomplete phase transformations (e.g. austenite formation
in duplex stainless steels), while the intrinsic heat treatment, in particular during DED, can
trigger precipitation reactions (e.g. in-situ tempering in tool steels).
Because of the difference between intended and observed microstructures, many AM-
produced steels require a post-heat treatment. This may differ from the usually-applied and
standardised heat treatment.

- 36 -
 As is typical for microstructures of steels solidified in a strong temperature gradient, steels
produced by AM usually show a pronounced crystallographic <001> fibre texture along the
build direction. However, solid-state phase transformations upon cooling, in particular the
martensite transformation e.g. in tool steels, leads to a weakening of the texture.
The hardness and tensile strength of AM-produced steels typically matches or even exceeds
that of their conventionally-produced counterparts. This is variously attributed to the fine
microstructure, to its hierarchical nature, and to precipitates present in the microstructure after
processing. The ductility, however, is often found to be inferior. The crucial factor to achieve
high elongation at fracture is the complete elimination of fracture initiation sites such as
microcracks or lack-of-bonding defects. For some material/process combinations where this is
achieved, the ductility has been shown to match conventionally-produced material.
Similar to ductility, also the fatigue strength depends mostly on surface and internal defects.
Samples tested with as-produced surface conditions usually show a poor fatigue life. Post-
treatments such as hot isostatic pressing and surface machining considerably improve fatigue
properties. In some cases, thus-treated specimens show a comparable fatigue life as
conventionally-produced specimens.
The corrosion properties of AM-produced steels, mainly stainless steels, is typically superior to
those of conventionally-produced material. Again, this is often attributed to the fine
microstructure, sometimes also to the special texture and the two-phase nature of AM-
produced stainless steels. The research into the reasons for the improved corrosion resistance is
still in its early stages.
Steels can be well processed by AM and display properties that are in some cases exceeding those of
conventionally-produced steels (strength, corrosion resistance), but in other cases lagging behind
(ductility, fatigue life). It is important to keep these strengths and weaknesses in mind when
designing parts to be manufactured from steel by AM or use these observations for the custom-
design of AM-specific steels with better properties considering these potential areas of weakness.
Likewise, the AM-typical requirements on modified heat treatments and, potentially, mechanical
anisotropy need to be taken into account. For instance, texture related anisotropy in diffusion,
magnetic and stiffness features need to be mitigated or can be utilized.

8. Outlook
In the future, additional research is required to overcome the challenges in AM steel processing. In
some cases, the underlying reasons for the observed properties need to be clarified, e.g. in the
interesting corrosion resistance of L-PBF produced stainless steels. In other cases, the interplay
between alloy and processing is needs to be improved either by adapted alloys or by improved
processing, e.g. in the case of C-bearing tool steels experiencing a relatively uncontrolled in-situ-
tempering during AM processing. Some combinations of alloys and processes are not explored yet,
e.g. there are only limited studies of steels in E-PBF.
Some of this research is already ongoing, especially in the area of microstructure modification by
process control. At the end of this review, two points merit consideration. First, the vast majority of
research being conducted on AM of steels up to now is about the processing of existing alloys with
new processes. However, alloys are always developed considering a certain processing route which
in turn lends the material a beneficial microstructure and thus property profile. Therefore, almost all
steels in AM at the moment are used in a way that was initially not intended. While this works well
in some cases (e.g. austenitic stainless steels), other steel classes are more difficult to process
(carbon-bearing tool steels). This disadvantage can be ameliorated by substitution (employ maraging
steels instead), process modification (develop high-temperature pre-heating systems), but also by

- 37 -
alloy modification. This latter possibility is currently mostly being neglected, but might evolve into a
promising research field in the near future, with some companies already today marketing steel
grades “developed specifically for AM”. The aim of such alloy development should not only be to
improve the processability of steels in AM, but also to exploit the unique features of AM processes
to produce steels with improved properties. An example are the high cooling rates in conjunction
with the intrinsic re-heating during sequential layer building enabling an order of magnitude high
precipitate number densities compared to conventional manufacturing routes in the case of some
maraging steels.
The second point pertains to the definition of “steel”. In this review, as well as in the vast majority of
published studies, steel refers exclusively to iron-base alloys intended for structural applications.
There is, however, increasing interest in utilizing AM for making parts of iron-base alloys with
functional properties. This includes the invar features of FeNi or FeCoNi steels which have over a
wide temperature range a negligible coefficient of thermal expansion and are therefore products
with key relevance for applications in the liquid-gas, precision machinery and space industries. In
these fields, AM produced invar alloys are already used for economic reasons and further growth is
envisaged. For instance, Invar 36 (Fe-36wt%Ni) can be well processed by L-PBF [207–209] and by
DED [210]. Another example for functional, iron-based alloys are electrical steels. These soft-
magnetic materials require a specific crystallographic texture (Goss texture, {011}<100>) to achieve
the low hysteresis losses that make them desirable for applications e.g. in transformers and electric
motors. In this application domain, the ability of AM to produce functional parts with complex
geometries opens a very promising field of research as advanced design strategies for the ongoing
electrification efforts in transportation, construction and manufacturing often require parts with
custom-designed shapes. Additionally, if the necessity to deform electrical steel by rolling is
removed by AM processing, Fe-Si-alloys with increased Si content may be used, which shows a
higher electrical resistivity compared to conventional electrical steel (up to 3.5%Si) and hence a
lower hysteresis loss [211–213]. Further iron-based functional materials that are considered for use
in AM include amorphous, nanocrystalline, and magnetocaloric materials (see [214] for a recent
review).

9. Acknowledgements
EAJ, AK and PK are grateful to the Strategic Cooperation of the Max-Planck Society and the
Fraunhofer Society for funding under the AProLAM project. PB acknowledges funding by the DFG
under grant number JA2482/2-1. AH is grateful to the graduate school SurMat for funding.

10. Data availability statement

The raw/processed data required to reproduce these findings cannot be shared at this time because
this being a review article, it was taken from the published literature.

11. References
[1] D. Herzog, V. Seyda, E. Wycisk, C. Emmelmann, Additive manufacturing of metals, Acta Mater.
117 (2016) 371–392. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2016.07.019.
[2] V. Manakari, G. Parande, M. Gupta, H.F. Lopez, Selective Laser Melting of Magnesium and
Magnesium Alloy Powders : A Review, 2017. doi:10.3390/met7010002.
[3] D. Gu, W. Meiners, K. Wissenbach, R. Poprawe, Laser additive manufacturing of metallic
components: materials, processes and mechanisms, Int. Mater. Rev. 57 (2012) 133–164.
doi:10.1179/1743280411Y.0000000014.
[4] S. Gorsse, C. Hutchinson, M. Gouné, R. Banerjee, Additive manufacturing of metals: a brief

- 38 -
 review of the characteristic microstructures and properties of steels, Ti-6Al-4V and high-
entropy alloys, Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 18 (2017) 584–610.
doi:10.1080/14686996.2017.1361305.
[5] H. Fayazfar, M. Salarian, A. Rogalsky, D. Sarker, P. Russo, V. Paserin, E. Toyserkani, A critical
review of powder-based additive manufacturing of ferrous alloys: Process parameters,
microstructure and mechanical properties, Mater. Des. 144 (2018) 98–128.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2018.02.018.
[6] S. Dadbakhsh, R. Mertens, L. Hao, J. Van Humbeeck, J.-P. Kruth, Selective Laser Melting to
Manufacture “In Situ” Metal Matrix Composites: A Review, Adv. Eng. Mater. 1801244 (2019)
1801244. doi:10.1002/adem.201801244.
[7] D. Lehmhus, M. Busse, A. von Hehl, E. Jägle, State of the Art and Emerging Trends in Additive
Manufacturing: From Multi-Material processes to 3D printed Electronics, MATEC Web Conf.
188 (2018) 03013. doi:10.1051/matecconf/201818803013.
[8] C.N. Hsiao, C.S. Chiou, J.R. Yang, Aging reactions in a 17-4 PH stainless steel, Mater. Chem.
Phys. 74 (2002) 134–142. doi:10.1016/S0254-0584(01)00460-6.
[9] S.L. Campanelli, N. Contuzzi, A. Angelastro, A.D. Ludovico, Capabilities and Performances of
the Selective Laser Melting Process, in: M.J. Er (Ed.), New Trends Technol. Devices, Comput.
Commun. Ind. Syst., Sciyo, 2012: pp. 233–252. doi:10.5772/10432.
[10] A. Armillotta, R. Baraggi, S. Fasoli, SLM tooling for die casting with conformal cooling channels,
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 71 (2014) 573–583. doi:10.1007/s00170-013-5523-7.
[11] M. Mazur, M. Leary, M. McMillan, J. Elambasseril, M. Brandt, SLM additive manufacture of
H13 tool steel with conformal cooling and structural lattices, Rapid Prototyp. J. 22 (2016)
504–518. doi:10.1108/RPJ-06-2014-0075.
[12] M. Mazur, P. Brincat, M. Leary, M. Brandt, Numerical and experimental evaluation of a
conformally cooled H13 steel injection mould manufactured with selective laser melting, Int. J.
Adv. Manuf. Technol. 93 (2017) 881–900. doi:10.1007/s00170-017-0426-7.
[13] L.E. Rännar, A. Glad, C.G. Gustafson, Efficient cooling with tool inserts manufactured by
electron beam melting, Rapid Prototyp. J. 13 (2007) 128–135.
doi:10.1108/13552540710750870.
[14] S. Kumar, S. Pityana, Laser-Based Additive Manufacturing of Metals, Adv. Mater. Res. 227
(2011) 92–95. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.227.92.
[15] M. Shiomi, F. Abe, M. Matsumoto, K. Uematsu, K. Osakada, The manufacturing of hard tools
from metallic powders by selective laser melting, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 111 (2002) 210–
213. doi:10.1016/s0924-0136(01)00522-2.
[16] T.H.C. Childs, C. Hauser, M. Badrossamay, Selective laser sintering (melting) of stainless and
tool steel powders: Experiments and modelling, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf.
219 (2005) 339–357. doi:10.1243/095440505X8109.
[17] T.H.C. Childs, C. Hauser, M. Badrossamay, Mapping and modelling single scan track formation
in direct metal selective laser melting, CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol. 53 (2004) 191–194.
doi:10.1016/S0007-8506(07)60676-3.
[18] M. Badrossamay, T.H.C. Childs, Further studies in selective laser melting of stainless and tool
steel powders, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 47 (2007) 779–784.
doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2006.09.013.
[19] I. Tolosa, F. Garciandía, F. Zubiri, F. Zapirain, A. Esnaola, Study of mechanical properties of
AISI 316 stainless steel processed by “selective laser melting”, following different

- 39 -
 manufacturing strategies, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 51 (2010) 639–647.
doi:10.1007/s00170-010-2631-5.
[20] C.Y. Yap, C.K. Chua, Z.L. Dong, Z.H. Liu, D.Q. Zhang, L.E. Loh, S.L. Sing, Review of selective laser
melting: Materials and applications, Appl. Phys. Rev. 2 (2015) 041101. doi:10.1063/1.4935926.
[21] C. Kamath, B. El-dasher, G.F. Gallegos, W.E. King, A. Sisto, Density of additively-manufactured,
316L SS parts using laser powder-bed fusion at powers up to 400 W, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 74 (2014) 65–78. doi:10.1007/s00170-014-5954-9.
[22] M. Thomas, G.J. Baxter, I. Todd, Normalised model-based processing diagrams for additive
layer manufacture of engineering alloys, Acta Mater. 108 (2016) 26–35.
doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2016.02.025.
[23] J. Metelkova, Y. Kinds, K. Kempen, C. de Formanoir, A. Witvrouw, B. Van Hooreweder, On the
influence of laser defocusing in Selective Laser Melting of 316L, Addit. Manuf. 23 (2018) 161–
169. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2018.08.006.
[24] H. Yu, J. Yang, J. Yin, Z. Wang, X. Zeng, Comparison on mechanical anisotropies of selective
laser melted Ti-6Al-4V alloy and 304 stainless steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 695 (2017) 92–100.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2017.04.031.
[25] E. Yasa, J.-P. Kruth, Microstructural investigation of Selective Laser Melting 316L stainless
steel parts exposed to laser re-melting, Procedia Eng. 19 (2011) 389–395.
doi:10.1016/J.PROENG.2011.11.130.
[26] J. Suryawanshi, K.G. Prashanth, U. Ramamurty, Mechanical behavior of selective laser melted
316L stainless steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 696 (2017) 113–121. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2017.04.058.
[27] Y. Zhong, L. Liu, S. Wikman, D. Cui, Z. Shen, Intragranular cellular segregation network
structure strengthening 316L stainless steel prepared by selective laser melting, J. Nucl.
Mater. 470 (2016) 170–178. doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2015.12.034.
[28] B. Blinn, M. Klein, C. Gläßner, M. Smaga, J.C. Aurich, T. Beck, B. Blinn, M. Klein, C. Gläßner, M.
Smaga, J.C. Aurich, T. Beck, An Investigation of the Microstructure and Fatigue Behavior of
Additively Manufactured AISI 316L Stainless Steel with Regard to the Influence of Heat
Treatment, Metals (Basel). 8 (2018) 220. doi:10.3390/met8040220.
[29] A. Riemer, S. Leuders, M. Thöne, H.A. Richard, T. Tröster, T. Niendorf, On the fatigue crack
growth behavior in 316L stainless steel manufactured by selective laser melting, Eng. Fract.
Mech. 120 (2014) 15–25. doi:10.1016/J.ENGFRACMECH.2014.03.008.
[30] J.W. Elmer, S.M. Allen, T.W. Eagar, Microstructural development during solidification of
stainless steel alloys, Metall. Trans. A. 20 (1989) 2117–2131. doi:10.1007/BF02650298.
[31] J. Brooks, M. Baskes, F. Greulich, Solidification modeling and solid-state transformations in
high-energy density stainless steel welds, Metall. Mater. …. 22 (1991).
http://www.springerlink.com/index/41J7283664306878.pdf (accessed March 25, 2013).
[32] A. Yadollahi, N. Shamsaei, S.M. Thompson, D.W. Seely, Effects of process time interval and
heat treatment on the mechanical and microstructural properties of direct laser deposited
316L stainless steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 644 (2015) 171–183. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2015.07.056.
[33] M. Ziętala, T. Durejko, M. Polański, I. Kunce, T. Płociński, W. Zieliński, M. Łazińska, W.
Stępniowski, T. Czujko, K.J. Kurzydłowski, Z. Bojar, The microstructure, mechanical properties
and corrosion resistance of 316L stainless steel fabricated using laser engineered net shaping,
Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 677 (2016) 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2016.09.028.
[34] P.G.E. Jerrard, L. Hao, K.E. Evans, Experimental investigation into selective laser melting of
austenitic and martensitic stainless steel powder mixtures, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng.

- 40 -
 Manuf. 223 (2009) 1409–1416. doi:10.1243/09544054JEM1574.
[35] K. Abd-Elghany, D.L. Bourell, Property evaluation of 304L stainless steel fabricated by
selective laser melting, Rapid Prototyp. J. 18 (2012) 420–428.
doi:10.1108/13552541211250418.
[36] T. Niendorf, S. Leuders, A. Riemer, H.A. Richard, T. Tröster, D. Schwarze, Highly Anisotropic
Steel Processed by Selective Laser Melting, Metall. Mater. Trans. B. 44 (2013) 794–796.
doi:10.1007/s11663-013-9875-z.
[37] J.M. Vitek, A. Dasgupta, S.A. David, Microstructural Modification of Austenitic Stainless Steels
by Rapid Solidification, Metall. Trans. A. 14 (1983) 1833–1841. doi:10.1007/BF02645553.
[38] Y.M. Wang, T. Voisin, J.T. McKeown, J. Ye, N.P. Calta, Z. Li, Z. Zeng, Y. Zhang, W. Chen, T.T.
Roehling, R.T. Ott, M.K. Santala, P.J. Depond, M.J. Matthews, A. V. Hamza, T. Zhu, Additively
manufactured hierarchical stainless steels with high strength and ductility, Nat. Mater. 17
(2018) 63–70. doi:10.1038/NMAT5021.
[39] J. Olsén, Z. Shen, L. Liu, A. Koptyug, L.-E. Rännar, Micro- and macro-structural heterogeneities
in 316L stainless steel prepared by electron-beam melting, Mater. Charact. 141 (2018) 1–7.
doi:10.1016/j.matchar.2018.04.026.
[40] I. Todd, Metallurgy: Printing steels, Nat. Mater. 17 (2017) 13–14. doi:10.1038/nmat5042.
[41] Y. Hong, C. Zhou, Y. Zheng, L. Zhang, J. Zheng, X. Chen, B. An, Formation of strain-induced
martensite in selective laser melting austenitic stainless steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 740–741
(2019) 420–426. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2018.10.121.
[42] M. Shamsujjoha, S.R. Agnew, J.M. Fitz-Gerald, W.R. Moore, T.A. Newman, High Strength and
Ductility of Additively Manufactured 316L Stainless Steel Explained, Metall. Mater. Trans. A.
49 (2018) 3011–3027. doi:10.1007/s11661-018-4607-2.
[43] S.-H. Sun, T. Ishimoto, K. Hagihara, Y. Tsutsumi, T. Hanawa, T. Nakano, Excellent mechanical
and corrosion properties of austenitic stainless steel with a unique crystallographic lamellar
microstructure via selective laser melting, Scr. Mater. 159 (2019) 89–93.
doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2018.09.017.
[44] Z. Sun, X. Tan, S.B. Tor, C.K. Chua, Simultaneously enhanced strength and ductility for 3D-
printed stainless steel 316L by selective laser melting, NPG Asia Mater. 10 (2018) 127–136.
doi:10.1038/s41427-018-0018-5.
[45] K. Saeidi, X. Gao, F. Lofaj, L. Kvetková, Z.J. Shen, Transformation of austenite to duplex
austenite-ferrite assembly in annealed stainless steel 316L consolidated by laser melting, J.
Alloys Compd. 633 (2015) 463–469. doi:10.1016/J.JALLCOM.2015.01.249.
[46] Y.J. Yin, J.Q. Sun, J. Guo, X.F. Kan, D.C. Yang, Mechanism of high yield strength and yield ratio
of 316 L stainless steel by additive manufacturing, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 744 (2019) 773–777.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2018.12.092.
[47] K. Saeidi, X. Gao, Y. Zhong, Z.J.J. Shen, Hardened austenite steel with columnar sub-grain
structure formed by laser melting, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 625 (2014) 221–229.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2014.12.018.
[48] K. Guan, Z. Wang, M. Gao, X. Li, X. Zeng, Effects of processing parameters on tensile
properties of selective laser melted 304 stainless steel, Mater. Des. 50 (2013) 581–586.
doi:10.1016/J.MATDES.2013.03.056.
[49] J.J. Lewandowski, M. Seifi, Metal Additive Manufacturing: A Review of Mechanical Properties,
Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 4614 (2016). doi:10.1146/annurev-matsci-070115-032024.

- 41 -
[50] X. Lou, P.L. Andresen, R.B. Rebak, Oxide inclusions in laser additive manufactured stainless
steel and their effects on impact toughness and stress corrosion cracking behavior, J. Nucl.
Mater. 499 (2018) 182–190. doi:10.1016/J.JNUCMAT.2017.11.036.
[51] H.D. Carlton, A. Haboub, G.F. Gallegos, D.Y. Parkinson, A.A. MacDowell, Damage evolution
and failure mechanisms in additively manufactured stainless steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 651
(2016) 406–414. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2015.10.073.
[52] Z. Wang, T.A. Palmer, A.M. Beese, Effect of processing parameters on microstructure and
tensile properties of austenitic stainless steel 304L made by directed energy deposition
additive manufacturing, Acta Mater. 110 (2016) 226–235. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2016.03.019.
[53] A.B. Spierings, T.L. Starr, K. Wegener, Fatigue performance of additive manufactured metallic
parts, Rapid Prototyp. J. 19 (2013) 88–94. doi:10.1108/13552541311302932.
[54] J. Suryawanshi, T. Baskaran, O. Prakash, S.B. Arya, U. Ramamurty, On the corrosion resistance
of some selective laser melted alloys, Materialia. 3 (2018) 153–161.
doi:10.1016/j.mtla.2018.08.022.
[55] G. Sander, S. Thomas, V. Cruz, M. Jurg, N. Birbilis, X. Gao, M. Brameld, C.R. Hutchinson, On
The Corrosion and Metastable Pitting Characteristics of 316L Stainless Steel Produced by
Selective Laser Melting, J. Electrochem. Soc. 164 (2017) C250–C257.
doi:10.1149/2.0551706jes.
[56] M.R. Stoudt, R.E. Ricker, E.A. Lass, L.E. Levine, Influence of Postbuild Microstructure on the
Electrochemical Behavior of Additively Manufactured 17-4 PH Stainless Steel, JOM. 69 (2017)
506–515. doi:10.1007/s11837-016-2237-y.
[57] Q. Chao, V. Cruz, S. Thomas, N. Birbilis, P. Collins, A. Taylor, P.D. Hodgson, D. Fabijanic, On the
enhanced corrosion resistance of a selective laser melted austenitic stainless steel, Scr. Mater.
141 (2017) 94–98. doi:10.1016/J.SCRIPTAMAT.2017.07.037.
[58] E.A. Jägle, Z. Sheng, L. Wu, L. Lu, J. Risse, A. Weisheit, D. Raabe, Precipitation Reactions in
Age-Hardenable Alloys During Laser Additive Manufacturing, Jom. 68 (2016) 943–949.
doi:10.1007/s11837-015-1764-2.
[59] X. Lou, M. Song, P.W. Emigh, M.A. Othon, P.L. Andresen, On the stress corrosion crack growth
behaviour in high temperature water of 316L stainless steel made by laser powder bed fusion
additive manufacturing, Corros. Sci. 128 (2017) 140–153. doi:10.1016/j.corsci.2017.09.017.
[60] X. Lou, M.A. Othon, R.B. Rebak, Corrosion fatigue crack growth of laser additively-
manufactured 316L stainless steel in high temperature water, Corros. Sci. 127 (2017) 120–
130. doi:10.1016/j.corsci.2017.08.023.
[61] C. Haase, J. Bültmann, J. Hof, S. Ziegler, S. Bremen, C. Hinke, A. Schwedt, U. Prahl, W. Bleck, C.
Haase, J. Bültmann, J. Hof, S. Ziegler, S. Bremen, C. Hinke, A. Schwedt, U. Prahl, W. Bleck,
Exploiting Process-Related Advantages of Selective Laser Melting for the Production of High-
Manganese Steel, Materials (Basel). 10 (2017) 56. doi:10.3390/ma10010056.
[62] F. Kies, P. Köhnen, M.B. Wilms, F. Brasche, K.G. Pradeep, A. Schwedt, S. Richter, A. Weisheit,
J.H. Schleifenbaum, C. Haase, Design of high-manganese steels for additive manufacturing
applications with energy-absorption functionality, Mater. Des. 160 (2018) 1250–1264.
doi:10.1016/J.MATDES.2018.10.051.
[63] T. Niendorf, F. Brenne, Steel showing twinning-induced plasticity processed by selective laser
melting - An additively manufactured high performance material, Mater. Charact. 85 (2013)
57–63. doi:10.1016/j.matchar.2013.08.010.
[64] T. Niendorf, F. Brenne, P. Hoyer, D. Schwarze, M. Schaper, R. Grothe, M. Wiesener, G.

- 42 -
 Grundmeier, H.J. Maier, Processing of New Materials by Additive Manufacturing: Iron-Based
Alloys Containing Silver for Biomedical Applications, Metall. Mater. Trans. A. 46 (2015) 2829–
2833. doi:10.1007/s11661-015-2932-2.
[65] J.-O. Nilsson, Super duplex stainless steels, Mater. Sci. Technol. (United Kingdom). 8 (1992)
685–700. doi:10.1179/mst.1992.8.8.685.
[66] K. Davidson, S. Singamneni, Selective Laser Melting of Duplex Stainless Steel Powders: An
Investigation, Mater. Manuf. Process. 31 (2016) 1543–1555.
doi:10.1080/10426914.2015.1090605.
[67] K. Saeidi, L. Kevetkova, F. Lofaj, Z. Shen, Novel ferritic stainless steel formed by laser melting
from duplex stainless steel powder with advanced mechanical properties and high ductility,
Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 665 (2016) 59–65. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2016.04.027.
[68] K. Saeidi, S. Alvi, F. Lofaj, V.I. Petkov, F. Akhtar, Advanced Mechanical Strength in Post Heat
Treated SLM 2507 at Room and High Temperature Promoted by Hard/Ductile Sigma
Precipitates, Metals (Basel). 9 (2019) 199. doi:10.3390/met9020199.
[69] F. Hengsbach, P. Koppa, K. Duschik, M.J. Holzweissig, M. Burns, J. Nellesen, W. Tillmann, T.
Tröster, K.-P. Hoyer, M. Schaper, Duplex stainless steel fabricated by selective laser melting -
Microstructural and mechanical properties, Mater. Des. 133 (2017) 136–142.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2017.07.046.
[70] C. Sørensen, B.M. Brønstad, R. Aune, A. Robertstad, X. Ren, M. Lervåg, M. Eriksson, B. Nyhus,
O.M. Akselsen, Additive manufacture of superduplex stainless steel using WAAM, MATEC
Web Conf. 188 (2018) 03014. doi:10.1051/matecconf/201818803014.
[71] K.P. Davidson, S. Singamneni, Magnetic Characterization of Selective Laser-Melted SAF 2507
Duplex Stainless Steel, JOM. 69 (2017) 569–574. doi:10.1007/s11837-016-2193-6.
[72] J. Hunt, F. Derguti, I. Todd, Selection of steels suitable for additive layer manufacturing,
Ironmak. Steelmak. 41 (2014) 254–256. doi:10.1179/0301923314Z.000000000269.
[73] M. Murayama, K. Hono, Y. Katayama, Microstructural evolution in a 17-4 PH stainless steel
after aging at 400 °C, Metall. Mater. Trans. A. 30 (1999) 345–353. doi:10.1007/s11661-999-
0323-2.
[74] H. Asgari, M. Mohammadi, Microstructure and mechanical properties of stainless steel CX
manufactured by Direct Metal Laser Sintering, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 709 (2018) 82–89.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2017.10.045.
[75] M. Mahmoudi, A. Elwany, A. Yadollahi, S.M. Thompson, L. Bian, N. Shamsaei, Mechanical
properties and microstructural characterization of selective laser melted 17-4 PH stainless
steel, Rapid Prototyp. J. 23 (2017) 280–294. doi:10.1108/RPJ-12-2015-0192.
[76] A.A. Adeyemi, E. Akinlabi, R.M. Mahamood, K.O. Sanusi, S. Pityana, M. Tlotleng, Influence of
laser power on microstructure of laser metal deposited 17-4 ph stainless steel, IOP Conf. Ser.
Mater. Sci. Eng. 225 (2017) 012028. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/225/1/012028.
[77] R. Rashid, S.H. Masood, D. Ruan, S. Palanisamy, R.A. Rahman Rashid, M. Brandt, Effect of scan
strategy on density and metallurgical properties of 17-4PH parts printed by Selective Laser
Melting (SLM), J. Mater. Process. Technol. 249 (2017) 502–511.
doi:10.1016/J.JMATPROTEC.2017.06.023.
[78] Z. Hu, H. Zhu, H. Zhang, X. Zeng, Experimental investigation on selective laser melting of 17-
4PH stainless steel, Opt. Laser Technol. 87 (2017) 17–25.
doi:10.1016/J.OPTLASTEC.2016.07.012.
[79] S. Pasebani, M. Ghayoor, S. Badwe, H. Irrinki, S. V. Atre, Effects of atomizing media and post

- 43 -
 processing on mechanical properties of 17-4 PH stainless steel manufactured via selective
laser melting, Addit. Manuf. 22 (2018) 127–137. doi:10.1016/J.ADDMA.2018.05.011.
[80] S.D. Meredith, J.S. Zuback, J.S. Keist, T.A. Palmer, Impact of composition on the heat
treatment response of additively manufactured 17–4 PH grade stainless steel, Mater. Sci. Eng.
A. 738 (2018) 44–56. doi:10.1016/J.MSEA.2018.09.066.
[81] B.C. Salzbrenner, J.M. Rodelas, J.D. Madison, B.H. Jared, L.P. Swiler, Y.L. Shen, B.L. Boyce,
High-throughput stochastic tensile performance of additively manufactured stainless steel, J.
Mater. Process. Technol. 241 (2017) 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2016.10.023.
[82] L. Facchini, N. Vicente, I. Lonardelli, E. Magalini, P. Robotti, A. Molinari, Metastable Austenite
in 17-4 Precipitation-Hardening Stainless Steel Produced by Selective Laser Melting, Adv. Eng.
Mater. 12 (2010) 184–188. doi:10.1002/adem.200900259.
[83] S. Cheruvathur, E.A. Lass, C.E. Campbell, Additive Manufacturing of 17-4 PH Stainless Steel:
Post-processing Heat Treatment to Achieve Uniform Reproducible Microstructure, Jom. 68
(2016) 930–942. doi:10.1007/s11837-015-1754-4.
[84] B. Clausen, D.W. Brown, J.S. Carpenter, K.D. Clarke, A.J. Clarke, S.C. Vogel, J.D. Bernardin, D.
Spernjak, J.M. Thompson, Deformation behavior of additively manufactured GP1 stainless
steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. (2017). doi:10.1016/j.msea.2017.04.081.
[85] Y. Sun, R.J. Hebert, M. Aindow, Effect of heat treatments on microstructural evolution of
additively manufactured and wrought 17-4PH stainless steel, Mater. Des. 156 (2018) 429–440.
doi:10.1016/J.MATDES.2018.07.015.
[86] A. Caballero, J. Ding, S. Ganguly, S. Williams, Wire + Arc Additive Manufacture of 17-4 PH
stainless steel: Effect of different processing conditions on microstructure, hardness, and
tensile strength, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 268 (2019) 54–62.
doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2019.01.007.
[87] H.K. Rafi, D. Pal, N. Patil, T.L. Starr, B.E. Stucker, Microstructure and Mechanical Behavior of
17-4 Precipitation Hardenable Steel Processed by Selective Laser Melting, J. Mater. Eng.
Perform. 23 (2014) 4421–4428. doi:10.1007/s11665-014-1226-y.
[88] A. Yadollahi, S.M. Thompson, A. Elwany, L. Bian, Effects of building orientation and heat
treatment on fatigue behavior of selective laser melted 17-4 PH stainless steel, Int. J. Fatigue.
94 (2017) 218–235. doi:10.1016/J.IJFATIGUE.2016.03.014.
[89] L.E. Murr, E. Martinez, S.M. Gaytan, D. a. Ramirez, B.I. MacHado, P.W. Shindo, J.L. Martinez, F.
Medina, J. Wooten, D. Ciscel, U. Ackelid, R.B. Wicker, Microstructural architecture,
microstructures, and mechanical properties for a nickel-base superalloy fabricated by
electron beam melting, Metall. Mater. Trans. A Phys. Metall. Mater. Sci. 42 (2011) 3491–3508.
doi:10.1007/s11661-011-0748-2.
[90] H. Irrinki, T. Harper, S. Badwe, J. Stitzel, O. Gulsoy, G. Gupta, S. V. Atre, Effects of powder
characteristics and processing conditions on the corrosion performance of 17-4 PH stainless
steel fabricated by laser-powder bed fusion, Prog. Addit. Manuf. 3 (2018) 39–49.
doi:10.1007/s40964-018-0048-0.
[91] L.E. Murr, E. Martinez, J. Hernandez, S. Collins, K.N. Amato, S.M. Gaytan, P.W. Shindo,
Microstructures and properties of 17-4 PH stainless steel fabricated by selective laser melting,
J. Mater. Res. Technol. 1 (2012) 167–177. doi:10.1016/S2238-7854(12)70029-7.
[92] L.E. Murr, E. Martinez, J. Hernandez, S. Collins, K.N. Amato, S.M. Gaytan, P.W. Shindo,
Microstructures and properties of 17-4 PH stainless steel fabricated by selective laser melting,
J. Mater. Res. Technol. 1 (2012) 167–177. doi:10.1016/S2238-7854(12)70029-7.

- 44 -
[93] A. Kudzal, B. McWilliams, C. Hofmeister, F. Kellogg, J. Yu, J. Taggart-Scarff, J. Liang, Effect of
scan pattern on the microstructure and mechanical properties of Powder Bed Fusion additive
manufactured 17-4 stainless steel, Mater. Des. 133 (2017) 205–215.
doi:10.1016/J.MATDES.2017.07.047.
[94] E.A. Lass, M.R. Stoudt, M.E. Williams, Additively Manufactured Nitrogen-Atomized 17-4 PH
Stainless Steel with Mechanical Properties Comparable to Wrought, Metall. Mater. Trans. A.
50A (2019) 1619–1624. doi:10.1007/s11661-019-05124-0.
[95] S. Cheruvathur, E.A. Lass, C.E. Campbell, Additive Manufacturing of 17-4 PH Stainless Steel:
Post-processing Heat Treatment to Achieve Uniform Reproducible Microstructure, Jom. 68
(2015) 930–942. doi:10.1007/s11837-015-1754-4.
[96] Z. Guo, J.T. Kindt, Partitioning of Size-Mismatched Impurities to Grain Boundaries in 2d Solid
Hard-Sphere Monolayers, Langmuir. 34 (2018) 12947–12956.
doi:10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b02633.
[97] T. LeBrun, T. Nakamoto, K. Horikawa, H. Kobayashi, Effect of Retained Austenite on
Subsequent Thermal Processing and Resultant Mechanical Properties of Selective Laser
Melted 17-4 PH Stainless Steel, Mater. Des. 81 (2015) 44–53.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2015.05.026.
[98] L. Carneiro, B. Jalalahmadi, A. Ashtekar, Y. Jiang, Cyclic deformation and fatigue behavior of
additively manufactured 17–4 PH stainless steel, Int. J. Fatigue. 123 (2019) 22–30.
doi:10.1016/J.IJFATIGUE.2019.02.006.
[99] P.D. Nezhadfar, R. Shrestha, N. Phan, N. Shamsaei, Fatigue behavior of additively
manufactured 17-4 PH stainless steel: Synergistic effects of surface roughness and heat
treatment, Int. J. Fatigue. 124 (2019) 188–204. doi:10.1016/J.IJFATIGUE.2019.02.039.
[100] P.D. Nezhadfar, E. Burford, K. Anderson-Wedge, B. Zhang, S. Shao, S.R. Daniewicz, N.
Shamsaei, Fatigue Crack Growth Behavior of Additively Manufactured 17-4 PH Stainless Steel:
Effects of Build Orientation and Microstructure, Int. J. Fatigue. (2019).
doi:10.1016/J.IJFATIGUE.2019.02.015.
[101] H. Irrinki, J.S.D. Jangam, S. Pasebani, S. Badwe, J. Stitzel, K. Kate, O. Gulsoy, S. V. Atre, Effects
of particle characteristics on the microstructure and mechanical properties of 17-4 PH
stainless steel fabricated by laser-powder bed fusion, Powder Technol. 331 (2018) 192–203.
doi:10.1016/J.POWTEC.2018.03.025.
[102] M.R. Stoudt, R.E. Ricker, E.A. Lass, L.E. Levine, Influence of Postbuild Microstructure on the
Electrochemical Behavior of Additively Manufactured 17-4 PH Stainless Steel, JOM. 69 (2017)
506–515. doi:10.1007/s11837-016-2237-y.
[103] A. Bayode, S. Pityana, E.T. Akinlabi, M.B. Shongwe, Effect of scanning speed on laser
deposited 17-4PH stainless steel, in: 2017 8th Int. Conf. Mech. Intell. Manuf. Technol., IEEE,
2017: pp. 1–5. doi:10.1109/ICMIMT.2017.7917404.
[104] I. Mathoho, E.T. Akinlabi, N. Arthur, M. Tlotleng, B. Masina, Metallurgical Characteristics of
Laser Peened 17-4 PH SS Processed by LENS Technique, in: 2019: pp. 279–285.
doi:10.1007/978-3-030-05861-6_25.
[105] S. Pal, H.R. Tiyyagura, I. Drstvenšek, C.S. Kumar, The Effect of Post-processing and Machining
Process Parameters on Properties of Stainless Steel PH1 Product Produced by Direct Metal
Laser Sintering, Procedia Eng. 149 (2016) 359–365. doi:10.1016/J.PROENG.2016.06.679.
[106] E. Lum, A.N. Palazotto, A. Dempsey, Analysis of the Effects of Additive Manufacturing on the
Material Properties of 15-5PH Stainless Steel, in: 58th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Struct. Struct. Dyn.
Mater. Conf., American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virginia, 2017.

- 45 -
 doi:10.2514/6.2017-1142.
[107] J.D. López-Castro, A. Marchal, L. González, J. Botana, Topological optimization and
manufacturing by Direct Metal Laser Sintering of an aeronautical part in 15-5PH stainless
steel, Procedia Manuf. 13 (2017) 818–824. doi:10.1016/J.PROMFG.2017.09.121.
[108] H.K. Rafi, T.L. Starr, B.E. Stucker, A comparison of the tensile, fatigue, and fracture behavior of
Ti–6Al–4V and 15-5 PH stainless steel parts made by selective laser melting, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 69 (2013) 1299–1309. doi:10.1007/s00170-013-5106-7.
[109] A. Alafaghani, A. Qattawi, M.A.G. Castañón, Effect of manufacturing parameters on the
microstructure and mechanical properties of metal laser sintering parts of precipitate
hardenable metals, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 99 (2018) 2491–2507. doi:10.1007/s00170-
018-2586-5.
[110] D. Roberts, Y. Zhang, I. Charit, J. Zhang, A comparative study of microstructure and high-
temperature mechanical properties of 15-5 PH stainless steel processed via additive
manufacturing and traditional manufacturing, Prog. Addit. Manuf. 3 (2018) 183–190.
doi:10.1007/s40964-018-0051-5.
[111] M.K. Alam, J. Urbanic, S.M. Saqib, A. Edrisy, Effect of Process Parameters On The
Microstructural Evolutions of Laser Cladded 420 Martensitic Stainless Steel, Mater. Sci.
Technol. Conf. Proc. (MS&T15), Oct. 4-8,. (2015) 35–54.
[112] M.K. Alam, A. Edrisy, J. Urbanic, J. Pineault, Microhardness and Stress Analysis of Laser-
Cladded AISI 420 Martensitic Stainless Steel, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 26 (2017) 1076–1084.
doi:10.1007/s11665-017-2541-x.
[113] X. Zhao, Q. Wei, B. Song, Y. Liu, X. Luo, S. Wen, Y. Shi, Fabrication and Characterization of AISI
420 Stainless Steel Using Selective Laser Melting, Mater. Manuf. Process. 30 (2015) 1283–
1289. doi:10.1080/10426914.2015.1026351.
[114] C. Tan, K. Zhou, M. Kuang, W. Ma, T. Kuang, Microstructural characterization and properties
of selective laser melted maraging steel with different build directions, Sci. Technol. Adv.
Mater. 19 (2018) 746–758. doi:10.1080/14686996.2018.1527645.
[115] W. Sha, Z. Guo, Maraging Steels: Modelling of Microstructure, Properties and Applications,
Elsevier, 2009.
[116] K. Kempen, B. Vrancken, S. Buls, L. Thijs, J. Van Humbeeck, J.-P. Kruth, Selective Laser Melting
of Crack-Free High Density M2 High Speed Steel Parts by Baseplate Preheating, J. Manuf. Sci.
Eng. 136 (2014) 061026. doi:10.1115/1.4028513.
[117] D. Croccolo, M. De Agostinis, S. Fini, G. Olmi, A. Vranic, S. Ciric-Kostic, Influence of the build
orientation on the fatigue strength of EOS maraging steel produced by additive metal
machine, Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 39 (2016) 637–647. doi:10.1111/ffe.12395.
[118] D. Bourell, J.P. Kruth, M. Leu, G. Levy, D. Rosen, A.M. Beese, A. Clare, Materials for additive
manufacturing, CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol. 66 (2017) 659–681.
doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2017.05.009.
[119] Y. Bai, Y. Yang, D. Wang, M. Zhang, Influence mechanism of parameters process and
mechanical properties evolution mechanism of maraging steel 300 by selective laser melting,
Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 703 (2017) 116–123. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2017.06.033.
[120] C. Tan, K. Zhou, W. Ma, P. Zhang, M. Liu, T. Kuang, Microstructural evolution,
nanoprecipitation behavior and mechanical properties of selective laser melted high-
performance grade 300 maraging steel, Mater. Des. 134 (2017) 23–34.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2017.08.026.

- 46 -
[121] T. Burkert, A. Fischer, THE EFFECTS OF HEAT BALANCE ON THE VOID FORMATION WITHIN
MARAGE 300 PROCESSED BY SELECTIVE LASER MELTING, Solid Free. Fabr. Symp. XXXIII (2015)
81–87. doi:10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2.
[122] E.A. Jägle, P. Choi, J. Van Humbeeck, D. Raabe, Precipitation and austenite reversion behavior
of a maraging steel produced by selective laser melting, J. Mater. Res. 29 (2014).
doi:10.1557/jmr.2014.204.
[123] T. Becker, D. Dimitrov, The achievable mechanical properties of SLM produced Maraging
Steel 300 components, Rapid Prototyp. J. 22 (2016) 487–494. doi:10.1108/RPJ-08-2014-0096.
[124] S. Bodziak, K.S. Al-Rubaie, L.D. Valentina, F.H. Lafratta, E.C. Santos, A.M. Zanatta, Y. Chen,
Precipitation in 300 grade maraging steel built by selective laser melting: Aging at 510 °C for 2
h, Mater. Charact. (2019) #pagerange#. doi:10.1016/j.matchar.2019.02.033.
[125] R. Casati, J. Lemke, M. Vedani, Microstructural and Mechanical Properties of As Built, Solution
Treated and Aged 18 Ni (300 grade) Maraging Steel Produced by Selective Laser Melting,
Metall. Ital. 109 (2017) 11–20.
[126] G. Casalino, S.L. Campanelli, N. Contuzzi, A.D. Ludovico, Experimental investigation and
statistical optimisation of the selective laser melting process of a maraging steel, Opt. Laser
Technol. 65 (2015) 151–158. doi:10.1016/j.optlastec.2014.07.021.
[127] C. Casavola, S.L. Campanelli, C. Pappalettere, Preliminary investigation on distribution of
residual stress generated by the selective laser melting process, J. Strain Anal. Eng. Des. 44
(2009) 93–104. doi:10.1243/03093247JSA464.
[128] S.L. Campanelli, A. Angelastro, C.G. Signorile, G. Casalino, Investigation on direct laser powder
deposition of 18 Ni ( 300 ) marage steel using mathematical model and experimental
characterisation, (2017) 885–895. doi:10.1007/s00170-016-9135-x.
[129] R. Casati, J. Lemke, A. Tuissi, M. Vedani, Aging Behaviour and Mechanical Performance of 18-
Ni 300 Steel Processed by Selective Laser Melting, Metals (Basel). 6 (2016) 218.
doi:10.3390/met6090218.
[130] E.A. Jägle, Z. Sheng, P. Kürnsteiner, S. Oclok, A. Weisheit, D. Raabe, Comparison of maraging
steel micro- and nanostructure produced conventionally and by Laser Additive Manufacturing,
Materials (Basel). 10 (2017). doi:10.3390/ma10010008.
[131] K. Kempen, E. Yasa, L. Thijs, J.-P. Kruth, J. Van Humbeeck, Microstructure and mechanical
properties of Selective Laser Melted 18Ni-300 steel, Phys. Procedia. 12 (2011) 255–263.
doi:10.1016/j.phpro.2011.03.033.
[132] C. Tan, K. Zhou, X. Tong, Y. Huang, J. Li, W. Ma, F. Li, T. Kuang, Microstructure and mechanical
properties of 18Ni-300 Maraging steel fabricated by selective laser melting, 6th Int. Conf. Adv.
Des. Manuf. Eng. Microstruct. (2016) 863–870. doi:10.1002/9781118356074.ch108.
[133] B. Mooney, K.I. Kourousis, R. Raghavendra, Plastic anisotropy of additively manufactured
maraging steel: Influence of the build orientation and heat treatments, Addit. Manuf. 25
(2019) 19–31. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2018.10.032.
[134] M.A. Kottman, Additive Manufacturing of Marging 250 Steels for the Rejuvenation and
Repurposing of Die Casting Tolling, 2015.
[135] M. Cabeza, G. Castro, P. Merino, G. Pena, M. Román, Laser surface melting: A suitable
technique to repair damaged surfaces made in 14 Ni (200 grade) maraging steel, Surf.
Coatings Technol. 212 (2012) 159–168. doi:10.1016/j.surfcoat.2012.09.039.
[136] P. Stoll, A. Spierings, K. Wegener, S. Polster, M. Gebauer, SLM Processing of 14 Ni (200 Grade)
Maraging Steel, in: DDMC 2016 Proc. 3rd Fraunhofer Direct Digit. Manuf. Conf., 2016.

- 47 -
 doi:10.3929/ethz-a-010802372.
[137] P. Kürnsteiner, M.B. Wilms, A. Weisheit, P. Barriobero-Vila, E.A. Jägle, D. Raabe, Massive
nanoprecipitation in an Fe-19Ni-xAl maraging steel triggered by the intrinsic heat treatment
during laser metal deposition, Acta Mater. 129 (2017) 52–60.
doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2017.02.069.
[138] W. Sha, Z. Guo, Maraging steels: Modelling of microstructure, properties and applications,
CRC Press, New York, 2009. doi:10.1533/9781845696931.142.
[139] N. Takata, R. Nishida, A. Suzuki, M. Kobashi, M. Kato, Crystallographic Features of
Microstructure in Maraging Steel Fabricated by Selective Laser Melting, Metals (Basel). 8
(2018) 440. doi:10.3390/met8060440.
[140] R. Tewari, S. Mazumder, I.S. Batra, G.K. Dey, S. Banerjee, Precipitation in 18 wt% Ni maraging
steel of grade 350, Acta Mater. 48 (2000) 1187–1200. doi:10.1016/S1359-6454(99)00370-5.
[141] W. Sha, A. Cerezo, G. Smith, Phase chemistry and precipitation reactions in maraging steels:
Part IV. Discussion and conclusions, Metall. Trans. A. 24 (1993) 1251–1256.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02668193 (accessed January 14, 2014).
[142] G.Q. Yin, X. Kang, G.P. Zhao, Fatigue properties of the ultra-high strength steel TM210A,
Materials (Basel). 10 (2017). doi:10.3390/ma10091057.
[143] Q. Chen, T. Nagano, Y. Nakamura, Y. Maeda, N. Kawagoishi, Initiation and Propagation
Behavior of a Fatigue Crack of Maraging Steel in High Humidity, in: 13th Int. Conf. Fract., 2013.
[144] Z. Liu, C. Chua, K. Leong, K. Kempen, L. Thijs, E. Yasa, J. Van-Humbeeck, J. Kruth, A preliminary
investigation on Selective Laser Melting of M2 high speed steel, Innov. Dev. Virtual Phys.
Prototyp. 1 (2012) 339–346. doi:10.1201/b11341-54.
[145] A. Simchi, Direct laser sintering of metal powders: Mechanism, kinetics and microstructural
features, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 428 (2006) 148–158. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2006.04.117.
[146] L. Zumofen, C. Beck, A. Kirchheim, H.-J. Denning, Quality Related Effects of the Preheating
Temperature on Laser Melted High Carbon Content Steel, in: Ind. Addit. Manuf. - Proc. Addit.
Manuf. Prod. Appl. - AMPA2017, 2017: pp. 210–219. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-66866-6_21.
[147] K. Kempen, L. Thijs, B. Vrancken, S. Buls, J. Van-Humbeeck, J.-P. Kruth, LOWERING THERMAL
GRADIENTS IN SELECTIVE LASER MELTING BY PRE-HEATING THE BASEPLATE, in: Proc. Solid
Free. Fabr. Symp., 2013.
[148] C.S. Wright, M. Youseffi, S.P. Akhtar, T.H.C. Childs, C. Hauser, P. Fox, Selective Laser Melting
of Prealloyed High Alloy Steel Powder Beds, Mater. Sci. Forum. 514–516 (2006) 516–523.
doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.514-516.516.
[149] Z.H. Liu, D.Q. Zhang, C.K. Chua, K.F. Leong, Crystal structure analysis of M2 high speed steel
parts produced by selective laser melting, Mater. Charact. 84 (2013) 72–80.
doi:10.1016/j.matchar.2013.07.010.
[150] J. Saewe, C. Gayer, L. Jauer, J. Kunz, C. Broeckmann, J.H. Schleifenbaum, Feasibility
Investigation for Laser Powder Bed Fusion of High-Speed Steels, in: Euro PM2018 - Spec.
Mater. I, 2018.
[151] J. Boes, A. Röttger, C. Mutke, C. Escher, W. Theisen, Microstructure and mechanical
properties of X65MoCrWV3-2 cold-work tool steel produced by selective laser melting, Addit.
Manuf. 23 (2018) 170–180. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2018.08.005.
[152] M. Sigl, Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklung des Elektronenstrahlinterns, Technische Universität
München, 2008.

- 48 -
[153] R. Casati, M. Coduri, N. Lecis, C. Andrianopoli, M. Vedani, Microstructure and mechanical
behavior of hot-work tool steels processed by Selective Laser Melting, Mater. Charact. 137
(2018) 50–57. doi:10.1016/j.matchar.2018.01.015.
[154] C. Scheitler, F. Huber, M. Schmidt, L. Siegel, O. Hentschel, D. Junker, A. Gorunow, Processing
of AISI H11 Tool Steel Powder Modified with Carbon Black Nanoparticles for the Additive
Manufacturing of Forging Tools with Tailored Mechanical Properties by Means of Laser Metal
Deposition (LMD), Metals (Basel). 8 (2018) 659. doi:10.3390/met8090659.
[155] D. Junker, O. Hentschel, M. Schmidt, M. Merklein, Investigation of Heat Treatment Strategies
for Additively-Manufactured Tools of X37CrMoV5-1, Metals (Basel). 8 (2018) 854.
doi:10.3390/met8100854.
[156] Y. Ali, S. Barnikol-Oettler, J. Reimann, J. Hildebrand, P. Henckell, J.P. Bergmann, Wire Arc
Additive Manufacturing of Hot Work Tool Steel with CMT Process, J. Mater. Process. Technol.
269 (2019) 109–116. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2019.01.034.
[157] F. Huber, C. Bischof, O. Hentschel, J. Heberle, J. Zettl, K.Y. Nagulin, M. Schmidt, Laser beam
melting and heat-treatment of 1.2343 (AISI H11) tool steel – microstructure and mechanical
properties, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 742 (2019) 109–115. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2018.11.001.
[158] M.J. Holzweissig, A. Taube, F. Brenne, M. Schaper, T. Niendorf, Microstructural
Characterization and Mechanical Performance of Hot Work Tool Steel Processed by Selective
Laser Melting, Metall. Mater. Trans. B Process Metall. Mater. Process. Sci. 46 (2015) 545–549.
doi:10.1007/s11663-014-0267-9.
[159] T.H.C. Childs, C. Hauser, Raster scan selective laser melting of the surface layer of a tool steel
powder bed, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 219 (2005) 379–384.
doi:10.1243/095440505X32201.
[160] A.J. Pinkerton, L. Li, Direct additive laser manufacturing using gas- and water-atomised H13
tool steel powders, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 25 (2005) 471–479. doi:10.1007/s00170-003-
1844-2.
[161] R. Mertens, B. Vrancken, N. Holmstock, Y. Kinds, J.P. Kruth, J. Van Humbeeck, Influence of
powder bed preheating on microstructure and mechanical properties of H13 tool steel SLM
parts, Phys. Procedia. 83 (2016) 882–890. doi:10.1016/j.phpro.2016.08.092.
[162] B. Ren, D. Lu, R. Zhou, Z. Li, J. Guan, Preparation and mechanical properties of selective laser
melted H13 steel, J. Mater. Res. (2019) 1–11. doi:10.1557/jmr.2019.10.
[163] J. Šafka, M. Ackermann, L. Voleský, Structural properties of H13 tool steel parts produced
with use of selective laser melting technology, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 709 (2016).
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/709/1/012004.
[164] J. Mazumder, A. Schifferer, J. Choi, Direct materials deposition: designed macro and
microstructure, Mater. Res. Innov. 3 (1999) 118–131. doi:10.1007/s100190050137.
[165] J.S. Park, J.H. Park, M.G. Lee, J.H. Sung, K.J. Cha, D.H. Kim, Effect of Energy Input on the
Characteristic of AISI H13 and D2 Tool Steels Deposited by a Directed Energy Deposition
Process, Metall. Mater. Trans. A Phys. Metall. Mater. Sci. 47 (2016) 2529–2535.
doi:10.1007/s11661-016-3427-5.
[166] D.L. Zheng, M. Qian, J.J. Yan, J.F. Sun, M. Yan, H.X. Li, X. Jia, Y.L. Li, Selective laser melting of
H13: microstructure and residual stress, J. Mater. Sci. 52 (2017) 12476–12485.
doi:10.1007/s10853-017-1380-3.
[167] A. Bohlen, H. Freiße, M. Hunkel, F. Vollertsen, Additive manufacturing of tool steel by laser
metal deposition, Procedia CIRP. 74 (2018) 192–195. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2018.08.092.

- 49 -
[168] N.S. Bailey, C. Katinas, Y.C. Shin, Laser direct deposition of AISI H13 tool steel powder with
numerical modeling of solid phase transformation, hardness, and residual stresses, J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 247 (2017) 223–233. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2017.04.020.
[169] L. Xue, J. Chen, S.H. Wang, Freeform Laser Consolidated H13 and CPM 9V Tool Steels,
Metallogr. Microstruct. Anal. 2 (2013) 67–78. doi:10.1007/s13632-013-0061-0.
[170] R. Dörfert, J. Zhang, B. Clausen, H. Freiße, J. Schumacher, F. Vollertsen, Comparison of the
fatigue strength between additively and conventionally fabricated tool steel 1.2344, Addit.
Manuf. 27 (2019) 217–223. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2019.01.010.
[171] M. Åsberg, G. Fredriksson, S. Hatami, W. Fredriksson, P. Krakhmalev, Influence of post
treatment on microstructure, porosity and mechanical properties of additive manufactured
H13 tool steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 742 (2019) 584–589. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2018.08.046.
[172] F. Deirmina, N. Peghini, B. Almangour, D. Grzesiak, M. Pellizzari, Heat treatment and
properties of a hot work tool steel fabricated by additive manufacturing, Mater. Sci. Eng. A.
753 (2019) 109–121. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2019.03.027.
[173] J. Mazumder, J. Choi, K. Nagarathnam, The direct metal deposition of H13 tool steel for 3-D
components, JOM. (1997) 55–60.
http://www.springerlink.com/index/6018462763247J00.pdf (accessed April 29, 2013).
[174] J. Krell, A. Röttger, K. Geenen, W. Theisen, General investigations on processing tool steel
X40CrMoV5-1 with selective laser melting, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 255 (2018) 679–688.
doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2018.01.012.
[175] J. Choi, Y. Chang, Characteristics of laser aided direct metal/material deposition process for
tool steel, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 45 (2005) 597–607.
doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2004.08.014.
[176] J. Choi, Y. Hua, Dimensional and material characteristics of direct deposited H13 tool steel by
CO2 laser, J. Laser Appl. 16 (2006) 245–251. doi:10.2351/1.1809638.
[177] J. Brooks, C. Robino, T. Headley, S. Goods, M. Griffith, Microstructure and Property
Optimization of LENS Deposited H13 Tool Steel, in: Proc. 10th Symp. ‘Solid Free. Fabr. Austin,
TX, USA, August 1999, Univ. Texas Austin, 1999: pp. 375–382.
doi:10.1016/j.optlastec.2013.04.024.
[178] W. Hofmeister, M. Griffith, M. Ensz, J. Smugeresky, Solidification in Direct Metal Deposition
by LENS Processing, JOM. (2001) 30–34.
[179] R. Cottam, J. Wang, V. Luzin, Characterization of microstructure and residual stress in a 3D
H13 tool steel component produced by additive manufacturing, J. Mater. Res. 29 (2014)
1978–1986. doi:10.1557/jmr.2014.190.
[180] D. Cormier, O. Harrysson, H. West, Characterization of H13 steel produced via electron beam
melting, Rapid Prototyp. J. 10 (2004) 35–41. doi:10.1108/13552540410512516.
[181] S.H. Riza, S.H. Masood, C. Wen, Wear behaviour of DMD-generated high-strength steels using
multi-factor experiment design on a pin-on-disc apparatus, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 87
(2016) 461–477. doi:10.1007/s00170-016-8505-8.
[182] S.H. Oliari, A.S.C.M. D’Oliveira, M. Schulz, Additive Manufacturing of H11 with Wire-Based
Laser Metal Deposition, Soldag. Inspeção. 22 (2017) 466–479. doi:10.1590/0104-
9224/si2204.06.
[183] T.H.C. Childs, C. Hauser, M. Badrossamay, Mapping and Modelling Single Scan Track
Formation in Direct Metal Selective Laser Melting, CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol. 53 (2004)
191–194. doi:10.1016/S0007-8506(07)60676-3.

- 50 -
[184] H.J. Niu, I.T. Chang, Selective laser sintering of gas and water atomized high speed steel
powders, Scr. Mater. 41 (2002) 25–30. doi:10.1016/s1359-6462(99)00089-5.
[185] M. a. Taha, a. F. Yousef, K. a. Gany, H. a. Sabour, On selective laser melting of ultra high
carbon steel: Effect of scan speed and post heat treatment, Materwiss. Werksttech. 43 (2012)
913–923. doi:10.1002/mawe.201200030.
[186] H.. Niu, I.T.. Chang, Selective laser sintering of gas atomized M2 high speed steel powder, J.
Mater. Sci. 35 (2000) 31–38. doi:10.1023/A:1004720011671.
[187] J.C. Walker, K.M. Berggreen, A.R. Jones, C.J. Sutcliffe, Fabrication of Fe-Cr-Al Oxide Dispersion
Strengthened PM2000 Alloy Using Selective Laser Melting, Adv. Eng. Mater. 11 (2009) 541–
546. doi:10.1002/adem.200800407.
[188] T. Boegelein, S.N. Dryepondt, A. Pandey, K. Dawson, G.J. Tatlock, Mechanical response and
deformation mechanisms of ferritic oxide dispersion strengthened steel structures produced
by selective laser melting, Acta Mater. 87 (2015) 201–215.
doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2014.12.047.
[189] G. J. Tatlock, K. Dawson, T. Boegelein, K. Moustoukas, A. R. Jones, High resolution
microstructural studies of the evolution of nano-scale, yttrium-rich oxides in ODS steels
subjected to ball milling, selective laser melting or friction stir welding, Mater. Today Proc. 3
(2016) 3086–3093. doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2016.09.024.
[190] R.M. Hunt, K.J. Kramer, B. El-dasher, Selective laser sintering of MA956 oxide dispersion
strengthened steel, J. Nucl. Mater. 464 (2015) 80–85. doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2015.04.011.
[191] E. Vasquez, P.F. Giroux, F. Lomello, A. Chniouel, H. Maskrot, F. Schuster, P. Castany,
Elaboration of oxide dispersion strengthened Fe-14Cr stainless steel by selective laser melting,
J. Mater. Process. Technol. 267 (2019) 403–413. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2018.12.034.
[192] R. Gao, L. Zeng, H. Ding, T. Zhang, X. Wang, Q. Fang, Characterization of oxide dispersion
strengthened ferritic steel fabricated by electron beam selective melting, Mater. Des. 89
(2016) 1171–1180. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2015.10.073.
[193] K. Saeidi, L. Kvetková, F. Lofaj, Z. Shen, Austenitic stainless steel strengthened by the in situ
formation of oxide nanoinclusions, RSC Adv. 5 (2015) 20747–20750. doi:10.1039/C4RA16721J.
[194] F. Yan, W. Xiong, E. Faierson, G.B. Olson, Characterization of nano-scale oxides in austenitic
stainless steel processed by powder bed fusion, Scr. Mater. 155 (2018) 104–108.
doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2018.06.011.
[195] C. Qiu, A new approach to synthesise high strength nano-oxide dispersion strengthened
alloys, J. Alloys Compd. 790 (2019) 1023–1033. doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2019.03.221.
[196] L. Thijs, J. Van Humbeeck, Investigation on the inclusions in maraging steel produced by
Selective Laser Melting, in: P.J. Bártolo (Ed.), Innov. Dev. Virtual Phys. Prototyp., 2011: pp.
297–304.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Q002_TiMJ6kC&oi=fnd&pg=PA297&dq=Inves
tigation+on+the+Inclusions+in+Maraging+Steel+Produced+by+Selective+Laser+Melting&ots=
kfwy9JEg1z&sig=7J18rvghDiO_BCoTp9Omy5Qv1vM (accessed April 11, 2014).
[197] Y. Liu, J. Fang, D. Liu, Z. Lu, F. Liu, S. Chen, C.T. Liu, Formation of oxides particles in ferritic
steel by using gas-atomized powder, J. Nucl. Mater. 396 (2010) 86–93.
doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2009.10.057.
[198] E. Yasa, J. Van Humbeeck, J. Kruth, K. Kempen, M. Rombouts, L. Thijs, Investigation on the
inclusions in maraging steel produced by Selective Laser Melting, in: Innov. Dev. Virtual Phys.
Prototyp., 2012: pp. 297–304. doi:10.1201/b11341-48.

- 51 -
[199] X. Zhou, Z. An, Z. Shen, W. Liu, C. Yao, Particles control in selective laser melting in-situ oxide
dispersion strengthened method, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 167 (2016) 012048.
doi:10.1088/1757-899X/167/1/012048.
[200] H. Springer, C. Baron, A. Szczepaniak, E.A. Jägle, M.B. Wilms, A. Weisheit, D. Raabe, Efficient
additive manufacturing production of oxide- and nitride-dispersion-strengthened materials
through atmospheric reactions in liquid metal deposition, Mater. Des. 111 (2016) 60–69.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2016.08.084.
[201] C. Doñate-Buendía, F. Frömel, M.B. Wilms, R. Streubel, J. Tenkamp, T. Hupfeld, M. Nachev, E.
Gökce, A. Weisheit, S. Barcikowski, F. Walther, J.H. Schleifenbaum, B. Gökce, Oxide
dispersion-strengthened alloys generated by laser metal deposition of laser-generated
nanoparticle-metal powder composites, Mater. Des. 154 (2018) 360–369.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2018.05.044.
[202] M. Simonelli, C. Tuck, N.T. Aboulkhair, I. Maskery, I. Ashcroft, R.D. Wildman, R. Hague, A
Study on the Laser Spatter and the Oxidation Reactions During Selective Laser Melting of
316L Stainless Steel, Al-Si10-Mg, and Ti-6Al-4V, Metall. Mater. Trans. A. (2015).
doi:10.1007/s11661-015-2882-8.
[203] B. AlMangour, D. Grzesiak, J.-M. Yang, Rapid fabrication of bulk-form TiB2/316L stainless steel
nanocomposites with novel reinforcement architecture and improved performance by
selective laser melting, J. Alloys Compd. 680 (2016) 480–493.
doi:10.1016/J.JALLCOM.2016.04.156.
[204] B. AlMangour, Y.-K. Kim, D. Grzesiak, K.-A. Lee, Novel TiB2-reinforced 316L stainless steel
nanocomposites with excellent room- and high-temperature yield strength developed by
additive manufacturing, Compos. Part B Eng. 156 (2019) 51–63.
doi:10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2018.07.050.
[205] B. AlMangour, D. Grzesiak, J.-M. Yang, In-situ formation of novel TiC-particle-reinforced 316L
stainless steel bulk-form composites by selective laser melting, J. Alloys Compd. 706 (2017)
409–418. doi:10.1016/J.JALLCOM.2017.01.149.
[206] B. AlMangour, D. Grzesiak, Jenn-MingYang, Selective laser melting of TiC reinforced 316L
stainless steel matrix nanocomposites: Influence of starting TiC particle size and volume
content, Mater. Des. 104 (2016) 141–151. doi:10.1016/J.MATDES.2016.05.018.
[207] C. Qiu, N.J.E. Adkins, M.M. Attallah, Selective laser melting of Invar 36: Microstructure and
properties, Acta Mater. 103 (2016) 382–395. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2015.10.020.
[208] N.J. Harrison, I. Todd, K. Mumtaz, Thermal expansion coefficients in Invar processed by
selective laser melting, J. Mater. Sci. 52 (2017) 10517–10525. doi:10.1007/s10853-017-1169-
4.
[209] M. Yakout, M.A. Elbestawi, S.C. Veldhuis, A study of thermal expansion coefficients and
microstructure during selective laser melting of Invar 36 and stainless steel 316L, Addit.
Manuf. 24 (2018) 405–418. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2018.09.035.
[210] X. Zhan, J. Zhou, C. Qi, D. Gu, The influence of heat input on the microstructure and solute
segregation mechanism of invar alloy laser melting deposition process, Mater. Res. Express. 5
(2018) 116530. doi:10.1088/2053-1591/aaded2.
[211] M. Garibaldi, I. Ashcroft, M. Simonelli, R. Hague, Metallurgy of high-silicon steel parts
produced using Selective Laser Melting, Acta Mater. 110 (2016) 207–216.
doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2016.03.037.
[212] M. Garibaldi, I. Ashcroft, J.N. Lemke, M. Simonelli, R. Hague, Effect of annealing on the
microstructure and magnetic properties of soft magnetic Fe-Si produced via laser additive

- 52 -
 manufacturing, Scr. Mater. 142 (2018) 121–125. doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2017.08.042.
[213] M. Garibaldi, I. Ashcroft, N. Hillier, S.A.C. Harmon, R. Hague, Relationship between laser
energy input, microstructures and magnetic properties of selective laser melted Fe-6.9%wt Si
soft magnets, Mater. Charact. 143 (2018) 144–151. doi:10.1016/j.matchar.2018.01.016.
[214] C. V. Mikler, V. Chaudhary, T. Borkar, V. Soni, D. Jaeger, X. Chen, R. Contieri, R. V. Ramanujan,
R. Banerjee, Laser Additive Manufacturing of Magnetic Materials, Jom. 69 (2017) 532–543.
doi:10.1007/s11837-017-2257-2.

- 53 -